BEENA SHAJI Vs. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(M.V.) No.2352 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, claiming the sum of 15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Shaji, husband of the first claimant, father of claimants 2 & 3 and son of the fourth claimant, in a motor accident that took place on 30.04.2001.

(2.) The claimants had in the claim petition averred that while the victim of the accident was travelling in his motor car from Eangapuzha to Kozhikode, a jeep owned and driven by the first respondent collided with the said motor car and in that accident, the victim sustained serious injuries resulting in his death on the same day. They contended that the accident took place solely on account of the negligence of the first respondent. Though notice was served on the first respondent, the owner-cum-driver of the jeep, and he had also entered appearance through counsel, he did not file a written statement. The second respondent insurer, who is the sole respondent in this appeal, entered appearance and filed a written statement admitting the fact that the jeep involved in the accident was covered by a valid insurance policy. The insurer however contended that the victim of the accident was negligent and was responsible for the accident. The insurer also contended that the amount claimed as compensation is exorbitant and excessive. It also disputed the age, avocation and income of the victim.

(3.) Before the tribunal, the first claimant, the wife of the victim, was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. Though she had also caused production of a salary certificate, stated to be one issued by her husband's employer, on the ground that the employer/representative of the employer has not been examined to prove the said document, it was not received into evidence. On the side of the respondents, no evidence, oral or documentary, was adduced. After considering the rival contentions and the evidence on record, the tribunal awarded the sum of 3,38,000/- as compensation under various heads as shown below; <FRM>JUDGEMENT_49_LAWS(KER)8_20161.htm</FRM>