VENU Vs. BINOY.K.T.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1454 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad is the appellant herein. The appellant filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident on 24.06.1998 at 10.00 p.m. He was travelling in the autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL - 10 -C/7243 from Kottakkal to Puthanathani. When it reached Randathani, the lorry with No.KBE/3787 driven by first respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent came from the opposite direction and hit against the vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling. The accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the lorry driver/first respondent. The appellant sustained severe injuries. He was running an automobile workshop and getting 7,000/ - per month. He suffered severe disabilities, incapacitating from doing any work. So he claimed a total compensation of 1,80,000/ -. Subsequently on the basis of the contentions of the respondents, the owner cum driver and the insurance company of the auto rickshaw were also impleaded as additional respondents 4 and 5 in the court below.

(2.) Respondents 1 to 4 remained absent.

(3.) The 3rd respondent appeared and filed counter admitting the insurance of the lorry involved in the accident, but denied negligence on the part of the first respondent. According to them, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw by its driver and the petition is bad for non jointer of necessary parties. They denied the nature of injury sustained, disability, income and occupation etc., of the petitioner. According to them the claim amount is excessive. They prayed for dismissal of the application. They also filed an additional written statement contending that the petition is not maintainable and the same petition was filed as O.P.1041/1999 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode for the injury sustained by him in the same accident. So there is duplication. In order to ascertain whether the above contention is correct, we also verified the records from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode and found that O.P.(MV)No.1040/1999 did not relate to the present petitioner.