LAWS(KER)-2016-6-73

KHADEEJA AND ORS. Vs. RUSHDI AND ORS.

Decided On June 07, 2016
Khadeeja And Ors. Appellant
V/S
Rushdi And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.1599 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, an application filed under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming compensation on account of the death of one Abdul Gafoor (husband of the 1st appellant, father of 2nd and 3rd appellants and son of the 4th appellant) in a motor accident which occurred on 18.4.2013, while he was riding a motor cycle bearing No.KL -57/A - 3161 along Thamarassery -Kozhikode Road. The motor cycle was owned by the 1st respondent and insured by the 2nd respondent. When the motor cycle reached the place of accident, a dog jumped in front of it. The deceased lost control of the motor cycle and it capsized, resulting serious injuries to him, who succumbed to injuries at Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. Claiming a total compensation of 2,94,000/ - from the owner and insurer of the motor cycle, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal.

(2.) Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent owner was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent insurer filed written statement contending that, the policy issued in respect of the motor cycle in question is only to comply with the statutory requirements of Chapter XI of the Act (i.e., against third party risks). In the said policy the liability of the insurer is specified and that does not include the rider of the motor cycle. An extra premium of 50/ - was collected from the insured to cover personal accident to owner -cum -rider. Since the deceased was not the owner of the motor cycle the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. The insurer has also contended that, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and that, the compensation claimed is exorbitant.

(3.) Before the Tribunal Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the appellants and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the respondents. Both sides have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence.