IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST, 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA ,1930 MACA.No. 910 of 2004(D) ( OPMV.131/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA ) APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN THE O.P: --------------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., CHALAKKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE O.P.: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOSE (DIED), S/O.KUNJIPAVOO, CHULLIYADAN HOUSE, TRAMWAY LINE, P.O. CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. MARY, W/O.JOSE, CHULLIYADAN HOUSE, EAST CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE. 3. MEJO, S/O.JOSE, CHULLIYADAN HOUSE, EAST CHALAKKUDY. 4. SINDU, D/O.JOSE, CHULLIYADAN HOUSE, EAST CHALAKKUDY. 5. JESVIN, S/O.JOSE, CHULLIYADAN HOUSE, EAST CHALAKKUDY. 6. C.V. PAVUNNY, S/O.VARUDUNNY, CHULLIYADAN HOUSE, KOTTATT P.O. 7. PAUL, S/O.KUNJUVAREED, ELUVATHINKAL HOUSE, IVGM ROAD, EAST CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R2,R3 AND R5. SRI.JIJO PAUL FOR R6 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2008, ALONG WITH MACA NO.188/2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 910 & 188 of 2004 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair,J: These connected appeals arise from common judgment of the M.A.C.T. awarding total compensation of Rs.1,00,600/- to the injured who died on account of natural cause after four years of accident. The appellants in M.A.C.A.No.188 of 2004 are the legal heirs of the injured who later died. The appellant in the connected appeal is the insurance company which has filed the appeal for modification of the award authorising the appellant to recover the compensation amount remitted from the owner and driver of the scooter which caused the accident. Counsel appearing for the registered owner of the scooter though produced a licence of the driver and contended that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation, we find that the copy of the licence produced does not authorise the driver to drive a two- wheeler. On the other hand, the licence authorises to MACA Nos.910 & 188 of 2004 :-2-: drive light motor vehicle and heavy motor vehicle to which two wheeler does not belong. Therefore, the insurance company is authorised to recover the compensation amount in terms of Section 149(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, we allow M.A.C.A.No.910 of 2004 authorising the insurance company to recover the compensation amount from respondents 6 and 7 in the appeal. 2. Connected appeal M.A.C.A.No.188 of 2004 is filed by the legal heirs of the injured person for enhancement of the compensation. On going through the award, we find that the injured later died on account of natural causes. Even though counsel for the claimants contended that no compensation is awarded for disability, we find that the M.A.C.T. noticed the medical report that the injured was an alcoholic and was an acute diabetic patient. There is no proof about his employment and loss of earning. Further, within four years of accident, the injured died due to other illness. It is seen that the Tribunal awarded compensation for MACA Nos.910 & 188 of 2004 :-3-: ten months for loss of employment. We do not find any justification in awarding enhancement of compensation to the appellants because the pillion rider is strictly not covered by the insurance and consequently, they are not entitled to enhancement of compensation. 3. Counsel appearing for the registered owner contended that he has not filed an appeal only because the M.A.C.T. has not passed award authorising the insurance company to recover the amount from him. However, since the insurance company's appeal was not admitted, there is no occasion for the registered owner to file a cross appeal. However, in the course of hearing the matter, we permitted the counsel for the registered owner to raise his objection about the compensation awarded. Even though counsel contended that the amount of compensation awarded was excess, we do not find any justification to interfere with the compensation awarded because around 50% of the compensation awarded is in the light of reimbursement of medical expenses. The next contention raised is that the MACA Nos.910 & 188 of 2004 :-4-: treatment was for the diseases not attributable to the accident and it was for diabetics and alcoholism as stated in the medical report. However, we find that in the accident, the injured has sustained major injuries to the head which led to even surgery. Therefore, we do not find any justification to reduce the compensation awarded to the injured who later died. In the circumstances, the objection raised on behalf of the registered owner against the award is also rejected. In the result, we dismiss M.A.C.A.No.188 of 2004 filed by the legal heirs of the injured. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge V.K.MOHANAN, Judge MBS/ MACA Nos.910 & 188 of 2004 :-5-: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I.T.A.NO. 81 OF 2000 ------------------------------------ MACA Nos.910 & 188 of 2004 :-6-: J U D G M E N T DATED:17-6-2008 MACA Nos.910 & 188 of 2004 :-7-: