UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SUSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. the third respondent in O. P. (M.V.) No. 335 of 1995 on the file of the M. A. C. Tribunal, Muvattupuzha is the appellant before us. This appeal is directed against the award dated 23.4.1996 passed by the Tribunal in the above application fixing the compensation of Rs. 1,04,000/- with 12% interest and directing the appellant company, the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, to indemnify the owner of the vehicle in respect of the compensation awarded.

(2.) In the motor accident which occurred on 13.5.1992 one Paulose died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The legal heirs of the deceased filed the above application claiming a total compensation of Rs. 4,64,800 under different heads but the claim was restricted to Rs. 2,00,000/-. According to them the deceased while walking along the side of the road, the offending vehicle a mini lorry bearing registration No. KL 7/4984 driven by the fifth respondent herein came in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down and thus sustained severe injuries in consequence of which he died next day. However, the sixth respondent herein the owner of the vehicle filed written statement admitting the accident, but denying the negligence on the part of the driver. According to him the vehicle was insured with the appellant company and the driver was having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The insurer company filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but denying the knowledge of the accident. Subsequently they filed an additional written statement contending that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger travelling in the platform of the mini lorry. They further contended that they were not liable to cover the risk of gratuitous passenger carried in the vehicle.

(3.) The Tribunal after the enquiry held that the driver of the mini lorry was responsible for the accident and it was occurred while deceased was walking along the side of the road. It further found that respondents 1 to 3 in the claim petition were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and the insurer of the vehicle was liable to indemnify the owner in respect of the compensation awarded. Hence this appeal.