ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. ABUBAKKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the appellant herein, is the sixth respondent in O.P.(MV)No.1050/2009 of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Kollam. The aforesaid original petition was filed by the legal representatives of one Sanil, who died in a road traffic accident. They have filed the aforesaid original petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the loss caused by the death of the deceased. The parties are referred to as in the original petition.

(2.) According to the petitioners, on 25.6.2002, while the said Sanil was riding a scooter on east-west direction, a maruti car driven by the first respondent, owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent came from behind and overtook the scooter and moved towards left side, whereby the car hit on the deceased, as a result of which he was thrown on the road. Immediately, a tempo traveller bearing No.KL-17/D 2203 driven by the fourth respondent, owned by the fifth respondent and insured with the sixth respondent came from the opposite direction and hit on the body of the deceased, thereby he sustained fatal injuries and eventually after two days, he succumbed to the injuries. The accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the maruti car by the first respondent and the fourth respondent, the driver of the tempo traveller. So, respondents 2 and 5 respectively are vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners for the loss caused to them, by the death of Sanil. Consequently, the third and sixth respondent insurance companies are liable to indemnify respondents 2 and 5 respectively by paying compensation to the petitioners. They claimed an amount of Rs. 15, 00, 000/- as compensation from the respondents.

(3.) Respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 were served with notice, but they did not appear and were set ex-parte. The third respondent filed written statement denying the liability to indemnify the second respondent on the ground that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the first respondent as the accident was not caused by the negligent act of the first respondent and the claim is excessive and disproportionate. According to them, the incident occurred when the deceased negligently attempted to overtake the maruti car and the fourth respondent as well as the fifth respondent also contributed to the negligence.