RAJU MATHAI @ RAJU Vs. BINU JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred against the award in O.P(MV) Nos. 1773/2015 and 1774/2015 of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode by the owner of the vehicle. Claimant's case in the lower court is that on 20.09.2015 at 9.40 am, while they were standing on the side of the Thiruvambadi-Pullorampara road, a car KL-57- E-4428 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver knocked down the claimants. As a result, they sustained serious injuries. Immediately, they were removed to Santhi Hospital, Omassery and Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 11,31,180/- with 9% interest and proportionate cost to claimants in O.P(MV) No. 1773/2015 and Rs. 6,66,770/- with 9% interest and proportionate cost to claimants in O.P(MV) No. 1774/2015. The insurer was directed to satisfy the award and directed to reimburse the amount from the appellant (R1 Owner). Being aggrieved by that, owner of the vehicle preferred these appeals.

(2.) In the lower court, the driver and owner of the vehicle contested the matter by filing a written statement and contended that the driver was holding a valid driving licence. The insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle, but contended that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence and he was charge sheeted under Section 3(1) read with 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Both cases were tried jointly and evidence was recorded in OP(MV) No. 1773/2015. Claimants evidence consist of oral evidence of PW1 and 2 and documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A25. Ext.C1 and C2 were marked in support of claimants. Respondents evidence consist of Exts.B1 to B3.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that claimants have no dispute with regard to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant was accompanying the driver at the time of accident who was taking instruction from him and that fact was not mentioned in the written statement. The driver was his wife, holding learner's licence. The investigating officer failed to note that fact in the final report. After detecting the above defect in the final report, he filed Annexure A1 petition before the CI of police, but that was not considered. In this circumstance, it is necessary to amend the written statement, for that he filed I.A Nos. 1815/2018 and 1816/2018. Respondents have no objection in amending the written statement.