Point of Law: Vehicle involved in the accident is a light motor vehicle and no badge is required to drive such a vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. M.A.C.A. No. 2031 of 2011 is an appeal filed by the original petitioner in O.P. (MV) No. 256/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam challenging award dated 11.07.2011 in the above case.

2. Whereas M.A.C.A. No. 718 of 2012 is an appeal at the instance of the 2nd respondent/owner of Tata Sumo bearing Reg. No. KL-07R-2617 in O.P. (MV) No. 256/2009. 2nd respondent impugns grant of recovery right by the Tribunal, as per award dated 11.07.2011 on the finding that the 2nd respondent violated policy conditions.

3. O.P. (MAC) No. 2613/2012 is also one at the instance of the 2nd respondent, the owner of the vehicle, challenging recovery right granted in connected O.P. (MV) No. 257/2009 by award dated 11.07.2011.

4. Facts in M.A.C.A. No. 2031/2011 and M.A.C.A. No. 718/2012:

The petitioners, met with an accident on 19.10.2008 at about 2 p.m. while travelling in a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL-9B-1990 from Ottapalam side to Shoranur side. According to them, they reached near Kanniyampuram Theruu road, a Tata Sumo model car bearing Reg. No. KL-07R-2617, driven by the 1st respondent, rashly and negligently came from the opposite direction hit against the motorcycle and they were thrown off from the motorcycle. In consequence thereof they sustained severe injuries. Soon after the accident, the petitioners were taken to Valluvanad Hospital, Ottapalam for first aid and from there referred to Aswini Hospital, Thrissur and admitted and treated there as inpatients for few days. Petitioners alleged that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the 1st respondent, the driver of Tata Sumo. 2nd and 3rd respondents are owner and insurer of the vehicle Tata Sumo respectively.

5. Even though the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No. 256/2009, the appellant in M.A.C.A. No. 2031/2011, claimed Rs. 3 lakh as compensation, the Tribunal granted Rs. 1,07,140/-. Whereas the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No. 257/2009 even though claimed Rs. 1 lakh, the Tribunal granted Rs. 7,000/- on a consolidated basis.

6. The 2nd respondent filed written statement denying negligence attributed against the 1st respondent driver of the Tata Sumo. The specific contention raised to the effect that the 2nd respondent was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident since he sold the vehicle as early as on 25.06.2008.

7. The 3rd respondent filed written statement and denied negligence against the 1st respondent and attributed the same against the rider of the motorcycle, the petitioner in O.P. (M).No. 257/2009. Issuance of valid policy to KL07 R 2617 was admitted. But liability was disputed on the grounds that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence and also the vehicle was altered and the same was not duly intimated to the insurer.

8. The Tribunal jointly tried O.P. (MV) No. 256/2009 and O.P. (MV) No. 257/2009 and by common award dated 11.07.2011, Rs. 1,07,140/- was granted as compensation along with 7% interest in O.P. (MV) No. 256/2009. In O.P. (MV) No. 257/2009, the Tribunal granted Rs. 7,000/- as compensation.

9. While canvassing increase in compensation in excess of what has been granted by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellant in M.A.C.A. No. 2031 of 2012 would submit that the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs. 3,500/- for the purpose of granting loss of earnings as well as disability income though it was specifically contended in the petition that the petitioner was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month doing the business of leather goods manufacturing and sale. Though the learned counsel for the appellant was asked to justify the contention based on evidence, he could not exactly point out any evidence to convince the income at Rs. 30,000/- though he had given reliance to Ext.A19 licence dated 6.5.2009 issued from Vaniyamkulam Grama panchayat for production of chappals.

10. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent as well as the 3rd respondent - the owner and insurer of the vehicle respectively