The main legal point established is the requirement for 'just and reasonable' compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, based on medical evidence and precedents.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.:— The appellants are additional claimants 2 to 5 in O.P. (MV) No. 732 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by one Shanmughan @ Sathyaseelan, the husband of the 1st appellant and father of appellants 2 to 4, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident which occurred on 18.02.2001, while he was travelling as pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No. TN-74/Z-7014, owned by the 4th respondent and ridden by the 5th respondent. At the place of accident, the motorcycle was hit by a trucker bearing registration No. TN-74/B-7095, owned by the 1st respondent, driven by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. In the accident, he sustained injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the trucker by the 2nd respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- under various heads. During the pendency of the claim petition, the original claimant died on 13.07.2001. His legal heirs filed an application to get themselves impleaded as additional claimants 2 to 5 and also to enhance the total compensation claimed as Rs. 5,00,000/-, for death of the original claimant. That application was allowed by the Tribunal.

2. Before the Tribunal, 3rd respondent insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the trucker involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the 2nd respondent driver. The insurer contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by the 5th respondent rider. The motorcycle hit on the front side of the trekker, which was coming from the opposite direction. The rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid driving license and the motorcycle was not covered by a valid insurance policy. The insurer disputed the age, occupation, income, etc. stated in the claim petition and contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant.

3. After the amendment of the claim petition, the 3rd respondent insurer filed additional written statement contending that the original claimant died not due to the injuries sustained in the accident. After the accident, he was admitted in the hospital and discharged after completion of treatment. He was a chronic epilepsy patient. No post mortem was conducted because his death was a natural death.

4. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the appellants/additional claimants 2 to 5 and PWs.1 and 2 were examined. On the side of the respondents, Ext. B1 insurance policy of the offending vehicle was marked.

5. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the trucker by the 2nd respondent driver. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, 3rd respondent insurer was held liable to indemnify the 1st respondent insured. Since no materials were placed before the Tribunal to prove that the death of the original claimant was as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, the Tribunal treated the claim as one claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the original claimant. Under various heads, Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,33,000/-, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 15.06.2001 till realisation and the 3rd respondent insurer was directed to satisfy the award. The amount of compensation was ordered to be apportioned among appellants in the ratio mentioned in the last paragraph of the award.

6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads and challenging the finding of the Tribunal that the death of the original