HAMSA Vs. K.V.MOHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1646/2005 and claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1645/2005 both on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam are the appellants herein.

(2.) The appellant in M.A.C.A.No.309/2009 was riding a motor cycle bearing No.KL -05C/9196 with the appellant in the other case was pillion rider. While they were travelling through the Thrissur -Palakkad National Highway road on 11.02.2005 at about 12.45 noon, when they reached the place of occurrence, the bus with Reg.No.KL -05/8636 driven by the first respondent owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit against the motor cycle driven by the claimant in O.P(MV)No.1646/2005 and in the accident, both of them sustained severe injuries. According to the claimant in O.P. (MV)No.1646/2005, he was aged 62 years at the time of accident, running a stationery shop getting 7,000/ - per month. He sustained severe injuries and suffered disability and on account of the injuries sustained, he could not pursue his employment. So he claimed a total compensation of 4,00,000/ - on various heads. According to the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1645/2005, he was a coolie worker, getting 4,500/ - per month, he was aged 36 years and he also sustained injures and incapacitated him from doing work and he claimed 2,00,000/ - as compensation on various heads.

(3.) The respondents 1 and 2 in both these cases remained absent and 3rd respondent appeared and filed counter contending that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by the rider of the motor cycle and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The owner of the bus committed breach of conditions of policy and as such they are not liable to pay any compensation. Further the owner, rider and insurer of the motor cycle were not impleaded and the application is bad for non -jointer of necessary parties. They also denied the occupation, income, disability etc., claimed by the petitioner and according to them, the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and they prayed for dismissal of the application.