IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

THURSDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945 MACA NO. 665 OF 2013 OPMV NO.2109 OF 2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

K.M.SEBASTIAN, S/O.MATHEW, KANNANAIKAL, KANJIRAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O KUTTUR, KOTTEKKAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE AND GUARDIAN SHINCY -DO-

BY ADVS.

SRI.V.BINOY RAM SMT.SAJITHA P.SOMAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 C.R.PUSHKARAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, PAMBOOR P.O, KUTTOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN 680 013.

2 RAVIKUMAR RAVI @ RAVI, S/O.KRISHNAN, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, VALAKKAVU DESOM, MULAYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 751.

3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, MAHESWARI BUILDING, M.G ROAD, THRISSUR PIN 680 001.

BY ADVS.

SMT.ANUROOPA JAYADEVAN SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The appellant was the petitioner in OP(MV) No.2109/2005 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur.

2. The said claim petition was submitted by him seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident that occurred on 09.01.2005. According to the appellant, the accident occurred while he was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.KL-8/J 567 through Thrissur-Kuthur MLA road and when the vehicle reached the railway level crossing, the 2^nd respondent, the driver of the bus, negligently drove the above bus in a reckless manner and due to the impact, the petitioner was thrown out from the bus and sustained serious injuries. Consequent to the same, the appellant was permanently disabled. The appellant was a heavy vehicle driver with a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. He was 38 years old at the time of the accident. The said bus was owned by the 1^st respondent and was insured with the 3^rd respondent. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances.

3. The 3^rd respondent alone contested the matter by filing a written statement wherein they admitted the coverage of policy but disputed the liability on various grounds. It was also contended that the 2^nd respondent was driving the vehicle without any valid driving licence or badge. Therefore there was violation of policy conditions. The quantum of compensation was also disputed by them.

4. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimonies of PWs1 and 2 and as documentary evidence, Exts.A1 to A14 were marked from the side of the appellant. Ext.X1 disability certificate was also marked. From the side of the respondents, a copy of the policy was marked as Ext.B1.

5. After the trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2^nd respondent in driving the bus. However, it was found that the driver was not having a valid driving licence and therefore, there was a violation of policy conditions. Accordingly, the initial liability was fixed upon the insurance company to pay the compensation and they were permitted to recover the same from the 1^st respondent. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.10,83,000/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 3^rd respondent with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and with proportionate costs, with the right of recovery of the said compensation from the 1^st respondent. However, later, the right of recovery granted to the 3^rd respondent was reviewed by the tribunal as per order dated 18.07.2016. This appeal is submitted by the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. Heard Sri. Binoy Ram, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. C. Harikumar, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent and Sri. P. Jacob Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

7. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the amount awarded by the t