JUDGMENT

The appellants were the petitioners in O.P.(MV)

No.760 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal. Pursuant to the direction of this court on 31.3.2021, in I.A.No.1/2021, the first respondent was deleted from the party array. The parties are for the sake of convenience, referred to as per the status before the Tribunal.

2. The petitioners have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of Abdul Gafoor (deceased) – the husband of the first petitioner, the father of the 2nd petitioner and the son of the 3rd petitioner.

3. The petitioners had averred in the claim petition that, on 14.2.2003, while the deceased was riding pillion on a motor cycle bearing Registration No:KL-11/N-6476 from Olavanna to Cheruvannur, when they reached the Cheruvannur junction, a bus bearing Registration No:KL- 11/P-9371 (Bus), hit the motor cycle. The deceased was thrown to the road and a lorry bearing Registration No:KL- 09/3035 (Lorry) again ran over the deceased. The deceased sustained serious injuries and he was taken to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, but unfortunately he succumbed to the injuries on the following day. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the bus and the lorry. The first respondent was the owner of the lorry and the 2nd respondent was the insurer of the lorry and the respondents 3 and 4 were the owner and insurer of the bus. The deceased was employed as a worker in a firm named 'Aroma Electricals', Kozhikode and earning a monthly income of Rs.6,000/- per month. The petitioners were the dependants of the deceased. Hence they claimed a total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-

from the respondents.

4. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a written statement contending that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. 5. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement admitting that the lorry had a valid insurance coverage,. However, it is contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle. It was also contended that the police have charge-sheeted the driver of the bus in the crime, therefore, it is only the 4th respondent who is liable to pay the compensation.

6. The 4th respondent filed written statement admitting that the bus also had a valid insurance coverage. Nevertheless, it was contended that the pillion rider/deceased had lost his life on account of the negligence on the part of the lorry, and the rider of the motor cycle had taken a sudden 'U' turn, which resulted in the accident.

7. The rider of the motor cycle also filed O.P(MV)No.798/2003 before the same Tribunal, seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him.

8. The Tribunal consolidated and jointly tried the original petitions. The petitioners produced and marked Exts.A1 & A2 in evidence. The respondents did not let in any evidence.

9. The Tribunal, by a common award, allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioners permitting them to realise an amount of Rs.2,22,000/-. However, the Tribunal reduced the amount by 25% on finding that the deceased was guilty for composite negligence.

10. Aggrieved by the finding that the deceased was guilty for composite negligence, and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioners are in appeal.

11. Heard Sri.Jamaludeen K.N, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners and Sri.P.K.Manojkumar, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent/insurance company.

12. The questions that arise for consideration in the appeal are;

(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in reducing the compensation by 25% by holding that the deceased was guilty for composite negligence?

(ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just?

13. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased was a p