SURABHI AND ORS. Vs. LANKA TRADERS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1658 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha are the appellants in M.A.C.A. No. 276 of 2007 while the third respondent in that case is the appellant in M.A.C.A. No. 563 of 2007. The claimants in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1670 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha are the appellants in M.A.C.A. No. 1938 of 2007 while the third respondent insurance company in that case is the appellant in M.A.C.A. No. 277 of 2007. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment, we are disposing of these appeals by a common judgment.

(2.) O.P.(M.V.) No. 1658 of 1999 was filed by the mother and siblings of deceased Santhosh Kumar claiming compensation for the death of Santhosh Kumar who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 7.9.1999. O.P.(M.V.) No. 1670 of 1999 was filed by the wife and children of Karunakaran who also died in the very same accident. The common case of the claimants in both the claim petitions was that the deceased Santhosh Kumar was riding a motor cycle with his father Karunakaran as pillion rider and when they reached the place of occurrence, the lorry with registration No. TN -72/A -3303, owned by the first respondent, driven by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent, came from the opposite direction and hit against the motor cycle and due to that impact, both of them sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries. According to the claimants, the deceased Santhosh Kumar was aged only 19 years and working in a coir factory conducted by his father getting Rs. 4,000/ - per month and they claimed a total compensation of Rs. 8,75,000/ - under various heads for his death. According to the claimants, the deceased Karunakaran was conducting a coir factory getting Rs. 5,000/ - per month. He was aged 48 years and they claimed a total compensation of Rs. 11,25,000/ - under various heads for his death.

(3.) Respondents 1 and 2 in both the cases remained absent. The third respondent in both the cases admitted the insurance of the lorry involved in the accident. But according to them, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle namely the deceased Santhosh Kumar and the lorry did not involve in the accident. They have further contended that the deceased Santhosh Kumar was not having any valid driving licence and as such, they are not liable to pay any compensation. They have further contended that the amount claimed under various heads are high and the total compensation claimed is also exorbitant. They prayed for dismissal of both the applications.