IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1509 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.2221/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- VARGHESE, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.STEEPHEN, ETHAPPIRI VEETTIL, CHENGAL KARA, KALADY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC SMT.N.SINDHU RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, PRIVATE MOTOR WORKER'S INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.4203, KAYAMKULAM. 2. ANANDHAN.K., S/O.KUNJUPILLA, ATHULYA, MADAVANAPUTHEN VEEDU, PADINJAREKIZHAKKUMURY, SOORANADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., KAYAMKULAM BRANCH, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR - R1 SMT.M.LALITHA NAIR - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.1775/07 IN M.A.C.A.NO.1509/2007 DISMISSED 6/08/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1509 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, in OP(MV) 2221/01. The claimant, a driver of the KSRTC bus, sustained injuries in a road accident. The case is that while he was driving a KSRTC bus, the bus driven by the 2nd respondent came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner hit on the KSRTC bus resulting in injuries to him and other occupants. Police though initially registered crime against the KSRTC driver, after investigation levied a charge sheet against the 2nd respondent who faced trial before the criminal court. As a supporting document to the charge sheet scene mahazar was also produced. The private bus was moving from north to south and the KSRTC bus in the opposite direction. Scene of occurrence is reported as 1.10 meters west of the eastern tar end which may indicate that it is the wrong side of the KSRTC bus. 2. The position of a vehicle immediately after the accident alone cannot be the criteria to decide the negligence for the reason that when there is a likelihood of an accident, the drivers of both vehicles would desperately try to avert the accident and for that purpose they may swerve the vehicle this side or that side and therefore it shall not be the sole MACA No.1509/07 2 criteria to arrive at a decision. But if there are tyre marks etc. it will indicate the position of the vehicle before the accident. But I do not hold that the scene mahazar has absolutely no reliance in finding out the negligence. But this is a matter which has to be explained by both sides when they are on a civil litigation. But, unfortunately, neither the claimant, driver of the KSRTC bus, nor the 2nd respondent, driver of the private bus, mounted the box to give any evidence with regard to the question of negligence. I feel that this is a case where an opportunity can be granted to both sides so that the Tribunal will have a better picture about the accident so as to find out the question of negligence. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with opportunity to the claimant as well as the respondents to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the matter shall be decided by the Tribunal in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.9.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.1509/07 3