Negligence must be established to claim compensation; acquittal in criminal cases does not negate liability under motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. SUDHA, J.

MACA Nos.293, 379, 2404 & 2293 of 2020 have been filed under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (the Act) by the third respondent/insurer and the claim petitioners respectively in O.P.(MV) Nos.1475 and 1500 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the common Award dated 24/08/2019. M.A.C.A. Nos.1389 and 3433 of 2020 have been filed by the third respondent/insurer and the claim petitioner respectively in O.P.(MV)No.1499 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, aggrieved by the Award dated 01/01/2020. In these appeals, the parties and documents will be referred to as described in the original petitions.

2. The claim petitioners in OP(MV) No.1475/2017 are the legal heirs, namely, husband; two daughters and son of deceased Jamsheena. The claim petitioner in OP(MV) No.1500 of 2017 is the minor daughter, and the claim petitioner in OP(MV) No.1499 of 2017, the eldest daughter of the deceased. OP(MV) No.1475/2017 and OP(MV) No.1500/2017 were jointly tried and a common award dated 24/08/2019 passed. OP(MV) No.1499/2017 was separately tried by the Tribunal and Award dated 01/01/2020 passed.

3. According to the claim petitioners, on 02/04/2016 at about 08:45 p.m., while the deceased and her daughters were travelling in scooter bearing registration no.KL-11-AY-2560 from the place by name South Beach to Kothipalam and when they reached the western side of the Kannamparamb Jumaath Mosque, car bearing registration no.KL-08-BA-3999 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against their scooter, as a result of which they sustained grievous injuries. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained. A sum of Rs.40,00,000/- was claimed by the claim petitioners in O.P(MV) No.1475/2017; a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by the claim petitioner in O.P(MV) No.1500/2017 and a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- by the claim petitioner in O.P(MV) No.1499/2017 as compensation under various heads.

4. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte.

5. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle, but denied liability. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. The second respondent has not been chargesheeted for negligence and so the insurer is not bound to indemnify the insured. The age, occupation etc. of the deceased and her daughters were disputed. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.

6. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A28 and Ext.C1 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the third respondent/insurer in OP(MV) No.1499 of 2017. In OP(MV) Nos.1475 & 1500 of 2017, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A14 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No documentary evidence was adduced by the third respondent/insurer.

7. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.17,02,000/- in OP(MV) No.1475/2017; Rs.1,05,000/- in OP(MV) No.1500/2017 and Rs.15,83,000/- in OP(MV) No.1499/2017 together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petit