VARGHESE M E Vs. RAJESH S/O RAVEENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P.(M.V.) No.638 of 2008 of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Pathanamathitta by the injured. Appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident on 03.01.2008 and the learned tribunal awarded compensation and directed the rider, owners of the Scooter KL-03/9355 to satisfy the award. Being aggrieved by that, the claimant preferred this appeal.

(2.) The above petition was filed under Sec.163A of the the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) for getting compensation on structured formula in the case of permanent disability to the claimant due to the accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle as indicated in the second schedule. His case is that on 03.01.2008 at 9.30 a.m., he was riding a motorcycle along Ranny-Valiyakavu public road and when he reached near Methanmukku, another vehicle KL-03/9355 ridden in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the appellant's vehicle as a result, he sustained serious injuries. Immediately he was removed to hospital. 1st respondent is the driver, 2nd respondent is the registered owner and 3rd respondent is the defacto owner. After filing the above petition, the owner of the vehicle died and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional 4th and 5th respondents. The owner and injured of the motorcycle were impleaded as R6 and R7. In the trial court, R1 and R3 contested the matter and filed written statement. R7 the insurer of the motor cycle contested the matter and admitted the insurance of the motor cycle. Claimant did not adduce any oral evidence, but his documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A12. Respondents did not adduce any oral evidence.

(3.) Heard Advocate T.K. Koshy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Adv. Manu Ramachandran, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the additional 7th respondent is the insurer and the motor cycle driven by the claimant was covered under a package policy. The insurer had collected the additional premium to cover the liability of the owner and the driver of the vehicle, which was not pleaded in the petition, hence he filed I.A.No.4541/2017 to amend the claim petition.