AYANA UNNIKRISHNAN Vs. SREEJITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned appeals are preferred against the common award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(M.V)Nos.816 & 817 of 2008. The former appeal is directed against the judgment and award in O.P.(M.V)No.817 of 2008 and the latter appeal is directed against the judgment and award in O.P. (M.V)No.816 of 2008. The claim petitions from which they arose were filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimants in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 30.5.2008. They were pillion riders on the motor cycle ridden by one Unnikrishnan who is the husband of the appellant in the latter appeal and father of the appellant in the former appeal. On 30.5.2008 they were travelling through Triprayar-Kodungallur NH from east to west and when they reached near Vasudevavilasam Valavu, the offending vehicle, which is a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-9/J-1852 driven by the 2nd respondent, hit on the motor cycle. The appellants sustained injuries. Both of them remained in hospital as inpatients for a period of 29 days. The injuries sustained by them resulted in permanent disability. It is in the said circumstances that they preferred the above mentioned claim petitions. As per the impugned common judgment and award the Tribunal assessed Rs.1,45,871/- as compensation payable in O.P.(M.V)No.816 of 2008 and Rs.2,10,344/- in O.P.(M.V)No.817 of 2008. Nonetheless, the Tribunal had granted only 75% of the amount assessed as compensation in both the cases based on its finding that the accident had occurred due to composite negligence and on its apportionment amongst the driver of the bus and the rider of the scooter respectively as 75% and 25%. It is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation assessed and awarded that the appellants have filed the above appeals.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the common third respondent the insurance company.

(3.) Upon hearing both sides and perusing the records we are of the view that it is only appropriate to consider, firstly, the correctness of the finding of composite negligence as the cause of the accident and the consequential deduction of compensation assessed, based on the apportionment of composite negligence among the driver of the bus and the rider of the scooter in the aforementioned ratio. It is to be noted that the aforementioned claim petitions were jointly considered along with O.P.(M.V)No.815 of 2008, filed by the rider of the scooter. Evidently, the Tribunal framed issue No.1 as common to all the claim petitions as hereunder:-