S SUDHAKARAN Vs. A K FRANCIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant in O.P.(M. V.)No. 58/89 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur is the appellant in M.F. A. No.892/92. Claimants 1 to 4 in O.P.(M.V.) No. 59/ 89 of the same Tribunal are the appellants in M.F. A. No. 893/92. The 3rd respondent insurer in O.P. (M.V.) No. 58/89 is the appellant in M.F.A. No. 991/92 and the 3rd respondent insurer in M. V.O.P. No. 59/89 is the appellant in M.F.A. No. 992/92. The claimant in O.P.M.V. No. 58/89 was a pillion-rider riding in a motor cycle KLV 7222 driven by deceased Sivasankaran on 15.11.1980. At about 11.00 a.m. when they reached Thalore, a lorry bearing registration No. KLH 5540 driven by the 2nd respondent in both the O.Ps. in a rash and negligent manner swerved to the wrong side and hit at the motor cycle driven by the deceased, whereby Sivasankaran sustained very serious injuries and died instantaneously. The Claimant in O.P. (M.V.) No. 58/89 sustained serious injuries and he had undergone prolonged treatment. Accordingly, the pillion rider filed M.V.O.P. No. 58/89 claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,24,000/- and the wife, two minor children and parents of deceased Sivasankaran filed M.V.O.P. No. 59/89 claiming a total compensation of Rs. 3,04,000/-.

(2.) Since the first respondent in both the O.Ps. contended that he sold the lorry to the 4th respondent much prior to the accident, the 4th respondent in both the O.Ps. was subsequently impleaded. The 4th respondent contended that at the time of the accident, there was valid insurance policy with the 3rd respondent and at that time, the first respondent was the owner of the lorry and therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation. The 2nd respondent contended that the accident was not due to any negligence or rash and negligent driving on his part. The 3rd respondent insurer contended that even though there was a valid policy for the lorry in the name of the first respondent as he transferred the vehicle illegally to defeat the provisions of law, the insurance policy became void and the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation for , the accident occurred while the lorry was owned and possessed by the 4th respondent as the transferee. They further contended that if at all their liability is limited to Rs. 50,000/-.

(3.) The learned Tribunal after enquiry and evaluating the evidence on record found that the first respondent has transferred the vehicle and on the date of accident, the 4th respondent was the real owner of the lorry and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 25,750/- to the claimant in O.P. (MV) No.58/89 and Rs. 2,22,000/- in O.P. (MV) No. 59/89 with interest at 12% p.a. from 15.4.1982 till realisation directing respondents 2 and 4 to pay the amount and the 3rd respondent to deposit the entire amount awarded in M.V.O.P. No. 58/89 and Rs. 50,000/- awarded in O.P. (MV) No. 59/89.