NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. THANKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Kesappan, while riding a cycle from west to east along the road at Thankalam near Kothamangalam, was hit by lorry bearing No. KLK 2982 which came from the opposite direction. Kesappan sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the same day. His widow and three minor children filed an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam claiming Rs. 1,00,800/ - as compensation from the driver, owner and the insurer of the lorry. The application was resisted on several grounds. The Tribunal held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry and fixed the compensation payable at Rs. 75,000/ - and fixed the liability on all the three respondents. The insurer has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE only contention urged by learned counsel for the appellant is that the insurance policy issued to the owner of the lorry makes it clear that it is only an Act policy and, therefore, the liability of the insurer is restricted to Rs. 50,000/ -. The insurer has filed C.M.P. No. 15286 of 1984 praying that true copy of the insurance policy No. 4227401796 4227401796 produced along with the petition may be received as additional evidence. A reading of the document shows that it was issued in the name of the owner of the lorry on 2.6 1980, that the period of insurance was 12 months till 1.6.1981, that it was an Act policy and the liability was restricted to such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act. As the Act then stood, the requirement was to cover to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ -. If the document is received in evidence and acted upon, the insurer has to succeed in this appeal.

(3.) WE find from the records that on 15.6.1984 this court ordered notice to the respondents in C.M.P. and service has been completed. None of the respondents chose to file a counter. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 would say that he was not aware of the petition or the document being produced. If notice has been served to those respondents, there is no purpose in saying that they did not bring it to the notice of learned counsel.