NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. M S MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second respondent insurer in O.P. (MV) No. 1123/1995 on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala is the appellant. Insurer has filed this appeal challenging an award passed by the Tribunal by which it had awarded an amount of Rs. 33,718/- as compensation to the first respondent/claimant for the damages sustained to his motor car bearing registration No. KL-5/A 3183. A collision took place between the car owned by the first respondent and a jeep bearing registration No. KEK 1933. On 16-2-1993 the car was proceeding towards south through Pala-Ponkunnam Road. According to the first respondent the jeep bearing registration No. KEK 1933 was parked on the eastern side of the road. The driver of the jeep abruptly started it and turned to the west in a rash or negligent manner which caused a collision of car with the jeep. The first respondent filed the Original Petition initially claiming an amount of Rs. 8,545/- as compensation alleging that car sustained substantial damages due to the negligence of the driver of the jeep.

(2.) The second respondent/owner of the jeep filed a written statement contending that the petition was not maintainable. It was contended that the first respondent received an amount of Rs. 42,032/- as full and final settlement for the damages sustained to his car from the third respondent who was the insurer of car. Since the first respondent was compensated by his own insurer he is not entitled to get any compensation again from the owner of the jeep. The averment that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent driver was denied. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent himself. It was also contended that jeep was covered with a valid policy of insurance issued by the appellant. The second respondent was holding a valid driving licence and in case the claimant is entitled to get any compensation the appellant is liable to pay the same.

(3.) The appellant/second respondent/insurer of jeep filed a written statement contending that the petition was not maintainable. It was contended that since the first respondent was compensated by his own insurer he was not entitled to get any compensation again for the very same damage from the owner of the offending vehicle. It was also contended that accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself.