SASIDHARAN NAIR Vs. ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMANT in OP (MV) No. 490/96 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, perumbavoor is the appellant herein. The accident occurred on 1-1-1996 when a motor cycle bearing Regn. No. KL-5/c-8633 driven by the 1 st respondent hit against the motor cycle in which the appellant/claimant was riding. The 2nd respondent is the owner and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the motor cycle bearing regn. No. KL-5/c-8633. The 1st respondent remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 2nd respondent 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. 512/1996. The 2nd respondent admitted that the vehicle stands insured with the 3rd respondent. But he contended that the 1st respondent was not authorised to drive the vehicle, and in fact he flew from the scene of occurrence on causing the accident.

(2.) THE 3rd respondent Insurance Company denied their liability on the ground that since the person who was riding the motor cycle was not authorised by the 2nd respondent, there is no vicarious liability on the part of the 2nd respondent, which the 3rd respondent is liable to be indemnified. The 3rd respondent 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 1st respondent is negligent in causing the accident. But holding that the offending vehicle was not under the custody or control of the 2nd respondent registered owner and the 1 st respondent was not a servant or authorised person of the 2nd respondent, the tribunal found the 2nd respondent as not liable to pay the compensation. The 3rd respondent being the insurer is therefore held as not liable since they are not bound to indemnify the 2nd respondent. The learned Tribunal relied on the judgment reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Selvarajamani and others, 1998 0 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 1st respondent alone was held liable to make payment of the said amount. In this appeal the challenge is against exoneration of the 3rd respondent from the liability. The appellant is also seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.