MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. ZUHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the respondent No. 3 in O.P. (MV) No. 691 of 2002 on the file of M.A.C.T., Kasargod. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein are the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein are the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in that O.P., which was filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 herein are the supplementary respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in that O.P.

(2.) The allegation is that on 23.3.2001 while deceased Shihab and others were travelling in an autorickshaw bearing No. KL 14-A 3698 from Kunhikanam to Ichi-langod driven by respondent No. 1 and when the said autorickshaw reached near Chandragiri Guest House, Mograf Puthur at about 3.15 p.m., a motor cycle bearing No. KL 13-A 3703 came at a high speed and after overtaking a lorry hit against the autorickshaw, as a result of which the autorickshaw overturned and thereby Shihab and others sustained serious injuries. Subsequently, Shihab died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The accident was due to negligence of both the drivers of the vehicles. Respondent No. 1 was the driver, respondent No. 2 was the owner and respondent No. 3 was the insurer of the autorickshaw. Petitioner No. 1 is the mother and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are the brothers and sisters of Shihab. The respondent No. 1 is the father of Shihab. The petitioners claim Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation. The respondent No. 3 filed a written statement admitting the policy of the autorickshaw and contends that the accident was due to negligence of the motorcyclist. In view of the contentions of respondent No. 3 supplementary respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were impleaded as they are the rider and owner of the motor cycle. Respondent No. 4 filed written statement contending that accident was due to negligence of respondent No. 1 and that the compensation claimed is excessive.

(3.) In the Claims Tribunal, PW 1 was examined and Exhs. Al to A3 and Bl and B2 were marked. The Claims Tribunal on considering the evidence found that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of both drivers of the vehicles and awarded an amount of Rs. 1,54,500 as compensation together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization from all the respondents jointly and severally and respondent No. 3 was directed to pay the entire compensation with liberty to recover half of the award amount from respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Against that award, the respondent No. 3 filed this appeal.