Kerala High Court
K.K.Sunil & Others vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd on 23 September, 2021
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1st ASWINAM, 1943
MACA NO. 1093 OF 2007
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 2916/1998 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/ADDL.6TH RESPONDENT:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
REP. BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,, M.G.ROAD,
KOCHI-11.
BY ADV SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & ADDL. 4TH & 5TH
RESPONDENTS RESPECTIVELY:
1 K.K.SUNIL, S/O.KUNJAPPAN,
KATTAKKAKATH HOUSE, VADATTUPARA P.O., AREEKACITY,
KOTHAMANGALAM.
2 P.P.BABY
PARAMALIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY.
3 UNNI,
CHENGOLAPPADATHU HOUSE, LAKSHOM VEEDU COLONY,
MULANTHURUTHY.
4 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THRIPUNITHURA.
5 MRS. G.GANALAKSHMY
SAROJ, 28/2877, CHILAVANNOOR, KOCHI-20.
6 SUBEESH
MANIKANDAN THURUTHU HOUSE, KARITHALA,, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SMT.ANILA PETER
SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN FOR R5
SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R4
MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008
2
SMT.K.N.RAJANI
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.09.2021, ALONG WITH MACA NO. 1940/2007,
CO.2/2008 & C.O 3/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINAM, 1943
MACA NO. 1940 OF 2007
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 2409/1998 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/ ADDL.6TH RESPONDENT:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,
M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11.
BY ADV SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & ADDL. 4TH & 5TH
RESPONDENTS:
1 T.K.SURENDRAN, S/O.KARTHIKEYAN,
VATTAKUNNEL HOUSE, OONNUKAL P.O., PUTHENCRUZ,
KOTHAMANGALAM.
2 P.P.BABY PARAMALIL HOUSE
MULANTHURUTHY.
3 UNNI CHENGOLAPPADATHU HOUSE
VEZHAPARAMBU, MULANTHURUTHY.
4 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THRIPUNITHURA.
5 MRS.G.GANALAKSHMY, SAROJ 28/2877,
CHILAVANNOOR, KOCHI-20.
6 SUBEESH, MANIKANDAN THURUTHU HOUSE••••••••••
KARITHALA, ERNAKULAM DIST.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN FOR R5
MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008
4
SMT.SARAH SALVY FOR R4
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.09.2021, ALONG WITH MACA NO.1093/2007 AND C.Os
2 AND 3 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING
MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINAM, 1943
CO NO. 2 OF 2008
AGAINST THE COMMON AWARD DATED 12.5.2006 IN O.P(MV)
NO.2916/1998 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM
CROSS OBJECTOR/ RESPONDENT IN APPEAL:
K.K.SUNIL, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAPPAN,KATTAKKAKATH
HOUSE, VADATTUPARA P.O., AREEKACITY, KOTHAMANGALAM.
BY ADV SRI.ANIL S RAJ
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT AND RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD REPRESENTED BY
1.1.]
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.
11 1. ROAD, KOCHI - 11.
2. P.P.BABY, PARAMALIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY.
UNNI, CHENGOLAPPADATHU HOUSE, LAKSHOMVEEDU COLONY,
3. MULANTHURUTHY.
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, TRIPUNITHURA.
4.
MRS.G.GANALAKSHMY, SAROJ, 28/2877, CHILAVANNOOR,
5. KOCHI -20
6. SUBEESH, MANIKANTANTHURUTHU (H), KARITHALA,
ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV
MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008
6
THIS CROSS OBJECTION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.1093/2007, 1940/2007 AND C.O 3 OF
2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008
7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RDDAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINAM, 1943
CO NO. 3 OF 2008
AGAINST THE COMMON AWARD DATED 12.5.2006 IN O.P(MV)
NO.2409/1998 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM
CROSS OBJECTOR/1ST RESPONDENT IN APPEAL:
T.K.SURENDRAN, AGED 38 YEARS, SON OF KARTHIKEYAN,
VATTAKKUNNEL HOUSE, OONNUKAL P.O, PUTHENCRUZ,
KOTHAMANGALAM.
BY ADV SRI.ANIL S RAJ.
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT AND RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6:
1.
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REPRESENTED
BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.
ROAD, KOCHI - 11.
2.
P.P.BABY, PARAMALIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY.
3.
UNNI, CHENGOLAPPADATHU HOUSE, LAKSHOMVEEDU COLONY,
MULANTHURUTHY.
4.
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
TRIPUNITHURA.
5. MRS.G.GANALAKSHMY, SAROJ, 28/2877, CHILAVANNOOR,
KOCHI-20.
MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008
8
6. SUBEESH, MANIKANTANTHURUTHU (H), KARITHALA,
ERNAKULAM
BY ADV
THIS CROSS OBJECTION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.1093/2007 1940/2007 AND C.O 2 OF
2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008
9
COMMON JUDGMENT
As these appeals and cross-objections arise out of the same common award in O.P (MV) Nos.2409/98 and 2916/98 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to their status in the claim petitions.
2. The petitioners - K.K.Sunil and T.K.Surendran - had filed O.P (MV) Nos.2916/1998 and 2409/1998, respectively, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, ( in short 'Act') claiming compensation on account of the injuries that they sustained in an accident on 27.6.1998. It was their common case in the claim petitions MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008 10 that, both of them were riding pillion on a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL-7/G 1636 (motorcycle) ridden by one Subeesh - the 5th respondent in the two claim petitions. When the motorcycle entered the Chittoor Road from S.R.V H. S Road junction, a bus bearing Reg. No.KCF- 4185 (bus), driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle. The petitioners fell down and sustained injuries. They were taken to the hospital and treated as inpatients. The bus was owned by the 1 st respondent and insured with the 3 rd respondent. The motorcycle was owned by the 4th respondent and insured with the 6th respondent. K.K.Sunil was a coolie by profession and was earning a monthly income of Rs.3,500/-. He claimed a compensation of Rs.2,67,000/- from the respondents, but limited the claim to Rs.1,62,750/-. T.K.Surendran was a bar bender and was earning a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. He claimed a MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008 11 compensation of Rs.7,88,000/-, from the respondents, but limited the claim to Rs.5,00,000/-.
3. The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the proceedings.
4. The 3rd respondent - the insurer of the bus - filed written statements contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 5th respondent; that the 5th respondent did not have a valid driving licence on the date of the accident; that he was an accused in Crime No.97/1998 of the Ernakulam Town South Police Station for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; that the 4th respondent had lodged a complaint before the Police for the theft of his motorcycle; that the amount claimed in the two claim petitions was excessive, therefore, the claim petitions may be dismissed.
5. The 4th respondent - the owner of the motorcycle
- had filed written statements stating that he was not in MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008 12 control of the motorcycle, as his motorcycle was stolen prior to the date of the accident. The crime was pending investigation before the Police. Therefore, he was not liable to pay any compensation.
6. The 6th respondent - the insurer of the motorcycle - had filed written statements asserting that as the motorcycle was not in the control of the 4 th respondent - insured, it was not liable to pay any compensation as the insured was absolved of his liability.
7. Sri.T.K.Surendran, the petitioner in O.P.2409/98, was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A17 were marked in evidence· The respondents produced and marked Exts.B1 to B6 in evidence.
8. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record , arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 5 th respondent - the rider of the motorcycle, who cut across MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008 13 from the sub-road to the main road namely the S.R.V.H.S. Road to the Chittoor Road. The Tribunal, after finding that the motorcycle was stolen and not in control of the 4th respondent, held that the 4th respondent was not liable to pay the compensation amount, but directed the 6 th respondent - the insurer of the 4th respondent -- to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners.
9. Aggrieved by the above direction, the 6th respondent - insurer has filed the appeals. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed the cross-objections.
10. Heard; Smt. Raji.T.Bhaskar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the two appeals/6 th respondent, Sri.Anil.S.Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the cross-objectors/petitioners, Sri.P.G.Ganappan, the learned counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent in both the appeals and Sri.Rajan P.Kalliath, the learned counsel MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008 14 appearing for the 4th respondent in MACA No.1093/2007 and Smt.Sarah Salvy, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent in MACA No.1940/2007.
11. Smt.Raji.T.Bhaskar contended that the Tribunal has erroneously directed the insurer of the motorcycle to pay the compensation, even after finding that the 4 th respondent was not in control of his vehicle, as the vehicle was stolen prior to the accident. She placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Abdul Rasheed [2006 (1) KLT 589] and National Insurance Co.Ltd v. Abdul Latheef [ 2004 (1) KLT 747] to canvass the position that when a vehicle is stolen, it cannot be said to be in the control of the insured. So, the insured cannot be liable for the accident. If the owner is not liable, naturally, the insurer is also not liable to pay the compensation, because a contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity.
MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008 15
12. Sri.Rajan P. Kalliath and Smt.Sarah Salvy, defended the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. They contended that the Tribunal has rightly fixed negligence on the 5th respondent because he was riding the motorcycle with two pillions, that too on a stolen motorcycle, and had cut across from the sub-road to the main road. They also contended that the cross-objections are not maintainable at the instance of the petitioners in the light of the decision of this Court in Manojkumar v. Subramanian [2010 (2) KLT 893], wherein, this Court has held that if an appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the liability alone, then a cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation is not maintainable. Hence, they prayed that the cross-objections be dismissed.
13. Sri.Anil.S.Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the cross-objectors/petitioners argued that the Tribunal has gone wrong in finding negligence only against the MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008 16 rider of the motorcycle. When the charge-sheet clearly establishes that the negligence was on the part of the 2 nd respondent - the driver of the bus, the finding of the Tribunal attributing negligence against the 5 th respondent alone was wrong. The Tribunal ought to have accepted the charge-sheet and held the 2nd respondent was negligent. Similarly, he argued that the cross-objections were sustainable in law, as the petitioners have questioned the findings of the Tribunal on the negligence and quantum aspects. Hence, he contended that the appeals may be dismissed and the cross-objections be allowed.
14. The questions that arise for consideration in the appeals and cross-objections are:
(i) Whether the direction of the Tribunal that the 6 th respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount is sustainable in law or not?
(ii) Whether the cross-objections filed by the MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008 17 petitioners are maintainable in law?
(iii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal fixing negligence against the 5th respondent alone is correct or not? and
(iv) Whether the cross objectors/petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation?.
Question No.(i)
15. The 4th respondent had lodged Ext.B6 complaint before the Station House Officer, Ernakulam South Police Station on 20.5.1998, stating that his motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL7/G-1636 was stolen. The Police registered Ext.B1 F.I.R (Crime No.97/1998) for an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and commenced investigation.
16. Pursuant to the direction of this Court in the appeals, the Station House Officer has filed a statement reporting the final report was filed against one Ignatius MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008 18 @ Chattan before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence) Court, Ernakulam for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code for stealing the motorcycle.
17. In view of the lodging of Ext.B6 complaint and the Police registering Ext.B1 FIR, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the motorcycle was not in the control and possession of the 4th respondent, and therefore, he was not liable to pay any amount as compensation.
18. Despite arriving at the above conclusion, the Tribunal has erred by directing the appellant - insurer of the motorcycle to pay the compensation amount.
19. The question whether the owner of a stolen vehicle is in control of the vehicle is no longer res integra in the light of the declaration of law by this Court in Abdul Rasheed (supra), wherein this Court has held that MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008 19 when a vehicle is stolen from the owner and later the vehicle is involved in an accident while driven by another person, who is either a thief or a person in possession of the stolen vehicle, such person cannot be said to be the authorized driver/rider of the vehicle as per the conditions in the policy.
20. In Abdul Latheef (supra) this Court has held that when the insured is found not liable to pay compensation, the insurer cannot be directed to indemnify the insured. Hence, the insured/owner as well as the insurer cannot be mulcted with liability, if the vehicle is stolen and involved in an accident.
21. I am in complete agreement with the above legal propositions, which are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
22. With the materials available on record, namely Ext.B6 complaint and Ext.B1 FIR, and the accident MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008 20 happening on 27.6.1998, i.e, within a month after the vehicle was stolen and the crime was under investigation, I hold that the owner of the vehicle/insured was not liable to pay the compensation amount. As a corollary to the same, the insurer of the motorcycle cannot also be mulct with the liability because a contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity. Thus, if the owner is not liable, obviously the insurer is also not liable. Therefore, I set aside the direction of the Tribunal that the appellant - insurer has to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. Accordingly, I answer question No.(i) in favour of the appellant - insurer.
Question No.(ii)
24. Sri.Rajan P.Kalliath and Smt.Sarah Salvy, placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Manojkumar (supra), wherein this Court has held that when an appeal is preferred by the insurer under the statutory grounds of MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008 21 defence enumerated under Section 149 (2) of the Act, no cross-appeal will lie at the instance of the petitioners for enhancement of compensation. In other words, only if the insurer has filed the appeal on all grounds, by virtue of having obtained permission to have wider defence under Section 170 of the Act, or on the basis of the 'reservation clause' mentioned in the policy enabling to contest the matter on behalf of the insured as well, a 'cross objection/cross appeal can be entertained. In the present case, as the 6th respondent has challenged only the liability part in the award, the cross-objections on the grounds of negligence and enhancement of compensation are not maintainable in law.
25. A three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Urmila Devi & Others v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd & Another [(2020) 11 SCC 316] has , inter alia, held as follows:
"23. When in an appeal the appellant could have MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008 22 raised any of the grounds against which he is aggrieved, we fail to understand, as to how a respondent can be denied to file cross-objection in an appeal filed by the other side challenging that part of the award with which he was aggrieved. We find, that the said distinction as sought to be drawn by the High Court is not in tune with conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 173 of the MV Act; rule 249 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992; and Order 41 Rule 22 CPC."
26. In view of the categoric declaration of law in Urmila Devi (supra), Manojkumar (supra) is no longer good law. Therefore, I hold that even though the appellant has preferred the appeals only challenging its liability, there is no legal impediment in the cross-objectors filing the appeal challenging the finding of negligence and seeking for enhancement of compensation. I answer Question No.(ii) in favour of the cross-objectors and hold that the cross-objections are maintainable in law. Question No.(iii)
27. The specific case of the petitioners before the MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008 23 Tribunal was that while they were riding pillion on the motorcycle ridden by the 5 th respondent, when they entered the Chittoor Road from the SRVHS road, the bus driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner without sounding horn and plying at terrific speed, hit the motorcycle. The petitioners fell down and sustained serious injuries. The accident occurred due to the negligent act and commission of the 2 nd respondent. The 1st respondent being the owner, the 2nd respondent being the driver and the 3rd respondent being the insurer of the bus were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
28. The petitioner in O.P (MV) No.2409/ 1998 examined himself as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A17 in evidence. He produced Ext.A5 charge-sheet filed by the City Traffic Police in Crime No.1245/1998, which establishes that the 2nd respondent was negligent in MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008 24 causing the accident. The respondents have not let in any contra evidence. Even though the 3 rd respondent had pleaded that the motorcycle was a stolen property and the 5th respondent was a thief etc., they have not pursued the matter further by letting in any evidence to prove the same.
29. This Court has in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Pazhaniammal [2011 (3) KLT 648], has succinctly laid down the law that, as a general rule, the production of the charge-sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of a claim filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The charge-sheet can be accepted as evidence of negligence against the accused driver. If any of the parties do not accept the charge- sheet, the onus of proof is on such party to adduce oral evidence and discredit the charge-sheet. If the oral evidence is adduced by such party, then the charge-sheet MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008 25 will fall into a pale of insignificance.
30. In the instant case, the Tribunal has totally disregarded the charge-sheet and arrived at the impugned conclusion for the sole reason that the 5 th respondent had cut-across from the sub road to the main road and the accident occurred at the junction.
31. On a perusal of Ext.A3 AMVI report and Ext.A4 scene mahazar, it is seen that both the bus and the motorcycle have got damaged and the accident occurred right in centre of the Chittoor Road junction. Therefore, I am of the opinion that both the 2 nd respondent and the 5th respondent had to have exercised due care while dealing with junction areas. Hence both of them have contributed to the accident. The allegation that the motorcycle was stolen and the 5th respondent was a thief etc., is irrelevant so far as the payment of compensation to the petitioners who got injured in the accident, are concerned. In fact in MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008 26 Mohammed Siddique and another v. National Insurance Co. Ltd [2020 KHC 6043] this Court has held that contributory negligence cannot be attributed merely because two pillion riders were riding on a two wheeler. Hence, it cannot be contended that the petitioners are dis- entitled to compensation dehors the negligence of the 2 nd respondent because they were travelling on a bike that was stolen. Hence, I fix the contributory negligence on the respondent Nos.2 and 5 in the ratio of 50:50.
32. As already found, the respondents have not let in any contra evidence to discredit the charge-sheet or that the accident was caused because the vehicle was stolen. In view of the enunciation of law in Pazhaniammal (supra) and the fact that the respondents have not let in any contra evidence., I am of the opinion that the finding that only the 5th respondent was negligent in causing the accident is erroneous and wrong.
MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008 27 33 In view of the above findings, I hold that the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. Since the 3rd respondent has admitted the insurance policy of the bus and has not alleged any violation of policy conditions, the 3 rd respondent is to indemnify the liability of the 1 st respondent. Accordingly, I direct the respondent Nos.3 and 5 to pay the compensation amount. Question No.(iii) is answered accordingly.
Question No.(iv)
34. It is found that the petitioners had sought for an amount of Rs.1,62,750/- and amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, respectively, as compensation. Admittedly, both the petitioners have not sustained any permanent disability.
35. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record have found that the petitioner in O.P 2409/1998 is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,72,250/- MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008 28 and the petitioner in O.P 2916/1998 is entitled to a compensation of Rs.38,250/-.
36. I have re-appreciated each head of claim and have found that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable and just compensation, particularly keeping in mind the fact that the accident occurred in the year 1998, i.e, about 23 years back. Hence, I hold that the petitioners are not entitled for further enhancement of compensation. I answer Question No.(iv) against the petitioners. In the result, the appeals are allowed by exonerating the appellant/insurer of the motorcycle from indemnifying the 4th respondent; and the cross-objections are allowed to the extent of permitting the cross-objectors/petitioners to realise the compensation amount awarded as per the impugned award from the respondent Nos.3 and 5/the insurer of the bus and the rider of the motorcycle. The respondents 3 and 5 are ordered to deposit the MACA NOS.,1093/2007, 1940/2007 & C.O. Nos2&3 of 2008 29 compensation amount awarded as per the impugned award with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and costs of Rs.3,000/- each before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The Tribunal shall release the deposited amount to the cross-objectors/petitioners in accordance with law. The amount deposited by the appellant before the Tribunal, pursuant to the order dated 2.7.2007 of this Court in I.A 1238/2007 in MACA 1093/2007, shall be refunded to the appellant in accordance with law.
ma/24.9.2021 Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
/True copy/