Parties are at liberty to settle claims with court approval, concluding recovery actions once payments are settled.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the third respondent, who is the owner in possession of the offending vehicle, challenging the award dated 25.08.2011 in O.P.(MV) No.993 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The respondents herein were the respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 and the claimant before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 06.03.1996 at about

9.45 p.m., while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-8E-938 along Thrissur to Kanjani road, a car bearing Reg.No.KEK-9171 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle and sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹1,39,000/-.

3. The first respondent/previous owner of the car filed a written statement contending that he had transferred the car to one Chacko Steephen and that he is the present owner of the car and is to be impleaded being a necessary party. The second respondent/driver of the car filed a written statement denying negligence on his part. The then impleaded third respondent filed a written statement contending that he was not the owner of the car at the time of the accident, as he had transferred the vehicle to one Joy. As the said Joy had died, his wife and son were impleaded as respondents 4 and 5 and they remained as ex-parte before the tribunal. Before the tribunal, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A11 and Exts.B1 to B9 documents were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹1,39,000/- to the claimant with interest @9% per annum from 16.8.96 till 20.2.2001 and 7% interest from 16.5.2005, as compensation under different heads against the the third respondent/owner. Challenging the impugned award, the third respondent/owner has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/third respondent and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Though notice was served on respondents 2 to 5 through paper publication, they chose not to appear before this Court.

5. Originally, the award was passed on 20.06.2008, directing the third respondent, the appellant herein, to pay the entire amount awarded by the tribunal. The said award was challenged by the appellant herein by filing M.A.C.A.

No.2384 of 2008 remanded the matter back to the tribunal to decide the issue regarding the liability alone after giving the parties an opportunity to adduce fresh evidence. Thereafter, the modified award dated 25.08.2011 was passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, wherein the liability was fixed on the third respondent, the appellant herein. The quantum remained as such.

6. The first respondent/previous owner, died during the pendency of the appeal, and respondents 6 to 8 were impleaded and they appeared through their counsel. When the case came up on 20.11.2025, the learned counsel appearing on both sides submitted that the appellant herein and the additional respondents 6 to 8 (the legal heirs of the first respondent) are ready and willing to settle the matter by depositing 50% each of the award amount, together with 6% interest from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. Based on their submissions, this Court directed them to deposit the amount accordingly before the tribunal.

Accordingly, 50% of the award amount, including interest and costs, after deducting the amount already paid, was deposited before the tribunal by way of demand drafts.

50% of the amount was deposited by additional respondents 6 to 8 ad per demand draft No.007556 dated 19.01.2026. Similarly the demand draft No.769682 dated 17.01.2026 was deposited by the appellant herein. Since the entire award amount has been deposited by the appellant and the legal heirs of the first respondent, who are the a