JAISON TOM Vs. SHAMSUDEEN.K.A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimant in O.P.(MV)No.2353/2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor is the appellant herein. The appellant/claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation for the personal injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident on 04.05.2000, involving a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL -7G/3362. According to him he was travelling in the goods vehicle accompanying the goods, while so when the vehicle reached the place of occurrence it fell into a ditch of about 200 feet and he sustained severe injuries resulted in permanent disability. He was working as a manager of Maria Group Hotels and getting 5,000/ - per month. He claimed a total compensation of 1,00,000/ - on various heads. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by the first respondent, owned by the

(2.) nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The first respondent died in the accident. 2nd respondent remained exparte. The 3rd respondent filed written statement contending that the vehicle was insured with them and their liability is strictly in accordance with the policy and they denied the occupation, income, disability, nature of injury sustained etc., According to them, the amount claimed is exorbitant and they prayed for dismissal of the application. 2. PW1, the father of the claimant was examined on the basis of the power of attorney and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on their side. The employer of the claimant was examined as PW2 in chief and since he was not available for cross examination, his chief examination was exchewed and not considered. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the respondent. After considering the evidence on record, the court below found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the first respondent, driver of the vehicle and awarded a total compensation of 31,725/ - on various heads as follows:

(3.) Since the appeal was not filed seeking enhancement of compensation, but only challenging the finding of the court below exonerating the insurance 2nd company alone, we feel that the appearance of respondent is not required and so we have dispensed with notice to the 2nd respondent and first respondent deleted from the party array as he died earlier and he was deleted from the party array even in the claim petition itself while the case was pending before the tribunal itself.