JUDGMENT

[MACA Nos.2681/2018, 3287/2018, 3104/2018 & 3109/2018]

All these appeals arose from a common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala, in O.P.(M.V.) Nos.1074/2014 and 1082/2014. Both the said claim petitions were submitted by the respective claimants seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to them in a motor accident that occurred on 18.08.2014. . (For convenience, the parties in these appeals are hereinafter referred to on the basis of their respective ranks in the claim petition).

2. The common case of the claimants is that, the accident occurred when the motorcycle ridden by the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1082/2014 with the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1074/2014 as the pillion rider, was hit by a lorry driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The said lorry was owned by the 2nd respondent and was insured with the 3rd respondent. In the accident, both the claimants sustained serious injuries and the claim petition was submitted in such MACA NO. 3109 OF 2018

7 circumstances.

3. The 1st and 2nd respondents, the owner and driver of the vehicle filed written statements disputing the involvement of the lorry in the accident. They specifically raised a contention that the said lorry did not hit the petitioners’ vehicle. Therefore, they sought dismissal of the claim petition. The 3rd respondent, insurer of the lorry also filed written statement raising contentions denying the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. It was also contended that there were two pillion riders at the time of the accident. The motorcycle was being driven at an over speed without observing traffic rules, and the same hit another motorcycle which was going in front. They also highlighted the delay of 42 days in registering the FIR. They sought dismissal of the claim petition in such circumstances

4. To substantiate the contentions the petitioners have examined PW1 who was the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1082/2014 and as documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A27 were marked. From the side of the respondents RWs 1 to 4 were MACA NO. 3109 OF 2018

8 examined and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that, the lorry was involved in the accident and it occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent, the driver of the lorry. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.12,87,000/- in O.P.(M.V.) No.1082/2014 and Rs.29,000/- was awarded as compensation in O.P.(M.V.) No.1074/2014. The said amounts were directed to be deposited by the 3rd respondent Insurance Company with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. M.A.C.A. No.2681/2018 and M.A.C.A. No.3287/2018 were submitted by the 3rd respondent Insurance Company challenging the finding of the Tribunal in the said award. M.A.C.A. No.3109/2018 and M.A.C.A. No.3104/2018 were submitted by the petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.1074/2014 and OP(MV)No.1082/2014 respectively, seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. Heard Sri.Prakash C. Vadakkan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the cases and Sri. A.R. George, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent MACA NO. 3109 OF 2018

9 Insurance Company in both the cases.

6. There is a serious challenge as to the involvement of the lorry in the accident. The petitioners mainly rely on the evidence of PW1, the claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No.1082/2014, the rider of the motorcycle, as well as the Ext.A2 final report and Ext.A20 judgment passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Erattupetta in S.T. No.2647/2014. As far as Ext.A2 final report is concerned, the Police after conducting the investigation in Crime No.1278/2014 of Erattupetta Police Station arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by 1st respondent. The driver of the lorry, upon receipt of the summons, appeared before the jurisdictional court and pleaded guilty, consequent to which he was sentenced as per Ext.A20 judgment. W