IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 1516 of 2004(D) ------------------------ OPMV.958/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- GEORGE, S/O.VARKEY, KIZHAKKEPURACKAL AMMANCHERRY, AMALAGIRI P.O. KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANTONY C. ETTUKETTIL RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PARAGON POLYMER PRODUCTS (P) LTD,. MATTATHARA BUILDINGS, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., KOTTAYAM REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.TOMY SEBASTIAN FOR R1 SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1516 OF 2004 --------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, in OP(MV) 958/99. The claimant filed an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to him, while he was driving a car bearing registration No.KL-5E-747 had over turned due to bad weather condition and he had sustained serious injuries and therefore had claimed compensation from the owner of Insurance Company of the car. 2. The 2nd respondent would contend that the accident had taken place only on account of the negligence of the claimant and therefore a petition under Section 166 cannot be entertained. The court below on appreciation of the entire materials available before it came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the claimant and therefore he is not entitled to compensation under Section 166. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant very strongly contends before me that being a driver, he has to obey the command of the person inside the car. Though he knew that the weather condition was bad, he was forced to proceed and that had resulted in the accident. 4. A driver by profession is expected to take reasonable care for MACA No.1516/04 2 himself and of the inhabitants of the car while proceeding. The definition of negligence itself indicate that when a person is expected not to do a particular thing or is expected to do a particular thing and does that act in violation, it amounts to negligence. Just because an occupant of the car forcibly asked the driver to proceed when the driver knew that it was impossible to proceed with the driving, he is not obliged to do the same. First of all it has to be stated that if the driver had taken the attention and care which he was expected to take as a prudent driver, the accident would not have taken place. There is no point in blaming somebody else for the same and contend for the position that there was no negligence on his part. It was not an act of God because it was something which was under the control of human agency. If it is an act of God certainly, one cannot find fault with for the reason that things were not under the control of the person who was about to commit an act. Therefore, I do not categorise this case as one which comes under the purview that there was no negligence on the part of the driver who met with the accident. I concur with the finding of the court below and dismiss the appeal. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.1516/04 3 MACA No.1516/04 4 MACA No.1516/04 5