LAWS(KER)-2020-7-332

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. HAWA ANSARI

Decided On July 10, 2020
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Appellant
V/S
Hawa Ansari Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 3rd respondent-insurer in OP(MV) No.2020/2013 on the files of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III, Ernakulam is in appeal invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by Award dated 12.01.2016.

(2.) Respondents 1 to 5 are the claimants in OP(MV) No.2020/2013. The petition was filed stating that a motor accident occurred at Kaloor - Pottakkuzhi road. The deceased Ansari was driving a petty auto bearing registration No.KL-07BS-4225 from west to east obeying traffic rules along with Ernakulam - Palarivattom road. When the vehicle reached Kaloor junction a scooter bearing registration No.KL-07BF-2540 came from north to south in a rash and negligent manner along the Kaloor - Pottakuzhi road and suddenly entered the junction. The scooter hit the auto and the auto was toppled down. Deceased Ansari sustained serious injuries and was taken to Lissie Hospital, Ernakulam. He succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Respondents 1 to 5, who are legal representatives of the deceased Ansari, stated that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 7 th respondent. The OP(MV) was initially filed under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking a compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/-. In the OP(MV) as it originally filed, respondents 1 to 5 stated that the deceased was 47 years old and had a monthly income of Rs. 9,000/-.

(3.) Respondents 6 and 7, who are the owner and driver of the scooter respectively, filed written statement stating that the scooter was insured with the appellant- insurer. Respondents 6 and 7 denied the statements of respondents 1 to 5 as regards age, occupation and income of the deceased. The appellant-insurer also filed a written statement. The appellant admitted the insurance coverage. However, the allegation that the 7th respondent drove the scooter rashly and negligently, was denied. The appellant stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself.