SASIDHARAN NAIR Vs. ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimant in O.P. (MV) No. 490 of 1996 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor is the appellant herein. The accident occurred on 1.1.1996 when a motor cycle bearing registration No. KL 5-C 8633 driven by the respondent No. 1 hit against the motor cycle in which the appellant-claimant was riding. The respondent No. 2 is the owner and respondent No. 3 is the insurer of the motor cycle bearing registration No. KL 5-C 8633. The respondent No. 1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No. 2 contended that the motor cycle in question belongs to him, but it was missing from Palai since 20.12.1995 as stolen by somebody. It is stated that only on getting information that the vehicle was involved in an accident at Perumbavoor and the police authorities had taken it into custody, he came to know about the motor cycle lost from his custody. It is further submitted that with respect to theft of the vehicle a criminal case had already been registered at Palai Police Station as Crime No. 512 of 1996. The respondent No. 2 admitted that the vehicle stands insured with the respondent No. 3. But he contended that the respondent No. 1 was not authorised to drive the vehicle and in fact he fled from the scene of occurrence on causing the accident.

(2.) The Insurance Company, respondent No. 3, denied their liability on the ground that since the person who was riding the motor cycle was not authorised by the respondent No. 2, there is no vicarious liability on the part of the respondent No. 2, which the respondent No. 3 is liable to indemnify. The respondent No. 3 also disputed the claim for compensation made under different heads as excessive and exorbitant.

(3.) On the basis of the documentary evidence relating to the criminal case registered in connection with the accident, the Tribunal found that the respondent No. 1 is negligent in causing the accident. But holding that the offending vehicle was not under the custody or control of the registered owner, respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 1 was not a servant or authorised person of the respondent No. 2, the Tribunal found the respondent No. 2 as not liable to pay the compensation. The respondent No. 3, being the insurer, is therefore held as not liable since they are not bound to indemnify the respondent No. 2. The learned Tribunal relied on the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Selvarajamani, 1998 ACJ 547, in support of the above findings. The Tribunal found that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 33,069. But the respondent No. 1 alone was held liable to make payment of the said amount. In this appeal the challenge is against exoneration of the respondent No. 3 from the liability. The appellant is also seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.