ABOOBAKER Vs. MOHAMMED SHAFFIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the award dated 30.11.2006 passed by the M.A.C.T., Ottappalam in O.P. (MV) No. 418 of 2004. The appellants are the claimants before the Tribunal, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Rasheed alias Hamza, who sustained inju-ries in a motor accident and subsequently died. The accident occurred on 4.11.2002 at about 9.50 p.m. while the deceased was driving the motor cycle bearing No. KRO 6064. He was proceeding from Aluva to Chengamanad. The accident occurred when the motor cycle skidded on the road and capsized, causing serious injuries to the deceased. Mohammed Shaffin, respondent No. 1, was impleaded as the owner of the motor cycle and the respondent No. 2 was impleaded as insurer of the motor cycle. The appellants-claimants have claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 towards compensa-tion. The claim petition was filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The deceased was stated as an employee of a hotel belonging to respondent No. 1.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 in his counter-affidavit denied the employer-employee relationship between him and the deceased. According to him, the deceased was not employed in the 'Royal Fast Food' stated as owned by him. At the time of the acci-dent, the respondent No. 1 was only a stu-dent and the deceased took the motor cycle of the respondent No. 1 for seeing cinema and the motor cycle is stated to have hit a scooter bearing registration No. KL 7-F 6350 and he died. It is alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the deceased. The insurer, respondent No. 2, contended that the accident was due to negligence of the rider of the motor cycle, viz., the de-ceased and that the claim petition was not maintainable under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was also contendedthat the death was due to collision between the motor cycle and the scooter and hence owner, rider and insurance company of the scooter were necessary parties. It was also contended that the deceased had no driv-ing licence to ride the motor cycle. But it was admitted that the motor cycle was insured with respondent No. 2.

(3.) In the additional written statement, they also contended that the policy was issued only to cover 'third party'. It is stat-ed that since the deceased was the rider of the motor cycle, he cannot be considered as a third party and hence no compensation is payable.