SUMA Vs. K.S. UNNIKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is from the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda [for brevity "the Tribunal"], in a claim filed by the legal heirs of the deceased in an accident. The O.P.(MAC) is filed by the owner of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling, since the liability was mulcted on the owner. Before looking at the enhancement as prayed for in the appeal, one has to look at whether there is a sustainable claim raised by the owner of the offending vehicle, to absolve himself from the liability.

(2.) Admittedly there is an insurance cover for the vehicle. The insurer was absolved from the liability since it was only an 'Act only Policy'. The claim for compensation was on the death of the pillion rider, which was alleged to have been occasioned due to the negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle. There could, hence, be no indemnification to the owner; of any compensation awarded in the claim petition.

(3.) OP(MAC) No.118 of 2017 is filed against the award as also the order passed which refused to set aside the ex parte order. Admittedly notices were issued in the claim petition and the same were received by the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. However, none appeared before the Tribunal. The award was passed on 14.07.2009. An Interlocutory Application was filed in the year 2010, seeking setting aside of the ex parte award. The Tribunal considered whether the petitioner has made out a sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte award. The petitioner had, before the Tribunal, stated that he was ailing from back pain and could not contact his lawyer. However, there was no medical certificate produced and, hence, the prayer was declined. In the Original Petition the owner-petitioner takes up an additional ground that he has in fact sold the vehicle. This is the ground on which he seeks setting aside of the ex parte award and release from the liability as mulcted by the Tribunal. It has to be noticed that there is nothing produced in the Original Petition to show that in fact he had sold the vehicle. If there was a sale of vehicle effected, necessarily there should be a sale letter issued, the duplicate of which has to be intimated to the Registering Authority as per the procedure prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The same has not been done. There is nothing produced in the Original Petition to evidence such transfer having been effected. The petitioner also does not have a contention as to any specific person to whom the vehicle was sold. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the rejection of the Interlocutory Application by the Tribunal nor can the award be interfered with on that ground.