GEORGE P VARGHESE Vs. G DANIEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides. This appeal is directed against the award dated 10.11.1995 in O.P. (M.V.) No. 208/1990 on the file of the II Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The owner and the driver of the vehicle No. KBV 3496 are the appellants in this appeal. The accident took place at about 9.30 a.m. on 28.8.1989. It is the case of the claimants that when the deceased Alexander reached the North Western side of Kottarakkara K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand, a car bearing registration number KBV 3496 driven by the second appellant herein negligently and with enormous speed, came from East to West and dashed against him and thereby the accident occurred. He sustained severe head injuries and he took treatment in the Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum. The police also have registered a case in connection with the accident involving the death of Alexander as Crime No. 262/89. The first appellant is the owner of the vehicle. The 8th respondent is the insurer. Appellants 1 and 2 have filed a joint written statement before the Tribunal denying the accident and contending that the car bearing registration No. KBV 3496 belonging to the first appellant was never involved in an accident on 28.8.1989 or on any other day. According to them, the case of the applicants as to the death of Alexander having been caused in an accident involving the car KBV 3496, while it was driven by the 2nd appellant, is nothing but an invented story to give paternity to the accident. The insurance company disowned the liability to indemnify the first appellant, the owner of the vehicle alleged to be involved in the accident, contending that the vehicle was not having a valid policy as and when the accident took place. According to the insurance company, the policy was issued to the first respondent in respect of the vehicle at 4.50 pm on 28.8.1989 and that policy is void as it has been obtained by willful nondisclosure of the material fact that the vehicle was involved in an accident at the time when the policy was applied for.

(2.) Before the Tribunal Exts. A1 to A8 and B1 to B4 were marked on the respective sides. On the side of the claimant PWs. 1 and 2 were examined. On the side of the respondents one Pradeep Kumar was examined as RW1 and one Mathew P. George (the second appellant herein) as RW 2. The learned District Judge on a consideration of the entire materials placed before him and also the evidence, born oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the owner and driver of the vehicle, the appellants herein, alone are liable to pay compensation in this case. In the result, an award was passed for Rs. 63,000/- as compensation to applicant Nos. 1 and 2, parents of the deceased, together with interest at 12% from the date of tiling of the application till the date of realisation, jointly and severally from respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (the appellants herein). Certain other directions were also given.

(3.) Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the owner and driver of the vehicle have preferred the above appeal under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the award of the Tribunal is against facts, law and evidence. According to the learned counsel, it was a clear case of false implication of the car and the driver in their attempt to give paternity to the accident and to harass the appellants and that all the circumstances in this case clearly points to the only conclusion that it was a hit and run case by some unidentifiable vehicle.