WILCY STEPHEN Vs. A. C. STEPHEN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise from a common award dated 27/09/2010 in O. P. (M. V.) Nos. 503 and 1048 of 2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. In fact, both the appeals have been preferred by one and the same person and therefore, hereafter in this judgment she will be referred to as 'the appellant'. The appellant herein filed the aforementioned claim petitions seeking compensation for the death of her two sons namely, Clifford Stephen and Steev Stephen in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07/05/2005. O. P. (M. V.) No. 503 of 2006 was filed seeking compensation for the death of Steev Stephen and O. P. (M. V.) No. 1048 of 2006 was filed seeking compensation for the death of Clifford Stephen. On that day, the deceased Clifford Stephen was driving the Maruti Alto Car bearing Reg. No. KL - 07 / AT - 5743 belonging to the first respondent who is none other than his own father, from east to west through Thevara bridge. His brother Steev Stephen was sitting beside him on the left seat. During its further course the said vehicle hit against the rear side of the Lorry bearing Reg. No. TN - 57 / B - 7864 and consequently, both of them sustained injuries. Clifford Stephen died instantaneously and Steev Stephen was taken to Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. While undergoing treatment there as an inpatient, on the 4th day, he too breathed his last. It is in the said circumstances that the aforementioned claim petitions have been filed. In fact, O. P. (M. V.) No. 1048 of 2006 was filed under S.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') whereas O. P. (M. V.) No. 503 of 2006 was filed under S.166 of the Act. Though the Tribunal had not conducted a joint enquiry it is a fact that the claim petitions were disposed of by the Tribunal as per the common judgment dated 27/09/2010. Evidently, paragraphs 9 and 10 of the impugned award would reveal that separate enquiry was conducted by the Tribunal and in O. P. (M. V.) No. 1048 of 2006 Exts.A1 to A13 were got marked and in O. P. (M. V.) No. 503 of 2006 Exts. A1 to A14 were got marked. The said fact is discernible from the appendix to the impugned award, as well. Paragraph 10 would reveal that after conducting separate enquiry, on finding that the victims in both the cases died in the same occurrence common judgment was delivered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record and the rival contentions passed an award for a total compensation of Rs.1,96,500.00 in O. P. (M. V.) No. 1048 of 2006 and Rs.1,17,000.00 in O. P. (M. V.) No. 503 of 2006. In both the claim petitions it was ordered that the amounts awarded would carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the respective petitions till realisation. It is feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted thereunder that M. A. C. A. Nos. 258 of 2011 and 377 of 2011 are filed, as mentioned hereinbefore.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals and also the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company which is arrayed as respondents 2 and 5 on account of it being the insurer of both the vehicles involved in the accident.

(3.) We will firstly consider whether the Tribunal has committed an error, warranting interference, by disposing of both the claim petitions, one filed under S.163A of the Act and the other under S.166 of the Act, by a common judgment. True that the term employed under S.168 and S.173 of the Act is 'award' and not 'judgment'. But then, R.392 of the Kerala Motor vehicles Rules, 1989 provides as follows: