IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 1329 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.456/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM REP BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JOHNY, S/O.CHAKKAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PADAYATTIL HOUSE, P.O.PALAPILLY,PALAPILLY DESOM OF VARANDARAPPILLY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THIRSSUR DISTRICT. 2. JOSEPH, S/O.ANTONY,AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS PINDIAN HOUSE, P.O.VARANDARAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. DASAN ,S/O. VELAYUDHAN,AGED 39 YEARS CHANDRA HOUSE, MANNUMPETTA, P.O.AMBALLUR THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1329 OF 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated 19th August, 2011 J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by Insurance company under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act. 2. The claimant-respondent sustained injury in a motor accident when he was riding the motor cycle. Third respondent herein allegedly drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly it applied break without giving any signal. Claimant's motor cycle hit on the rear side of the bus and he was thrown off and he sustained injury. Second respondent herein is the owner of the bus and appellant is the insurer. Evidence was adduced in this case. PW1 and PW2 were examined. Documents were also marked. After analysing the evidence on record Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) allowed the claimants to realise Rs.47,425/- as compensation and the amount was ordered to be paid by insurer-appellant. 3. The insurer has challenged the award. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the accident happened due to the M.A.C.A. No.1329/11 2 rash and negligent driving of motor cyclist himself. As per the provisions of law relating to motor vehicles, the driver of the vehicle is expected to keep a safe distance from the vehicle which is moving in front. In this case, this has not occurred and hence the accident. He also relied upon the decision reported in Prasanna Vs. Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C 2008(4) KLT 953 in support of his contentions. It is also argued that at any rate, the incident happened due to the contributory negligence of claimant as well as driver of the bus and hence, appellant is not liable to pay entire compensation. 4. Bus driver has not chosen to deny the liability for the alleged rash and negligent driving. The tribunal found that he has not come forward to explain how the incident happened. Learned counsel for appellant was also not able to explain how and in what manner evidence of PW1 is discredited to indicate that he himself contributed to the incident or that he was negligent in his driving. He submitted that tribunal has relied upon FIR and final report to hold that incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver. 5. On a reading of the impugned award, it is clear that it is not merely on the basis of final report and FIR that finding is M.A.C.A. No.1329/11 3 entered. On rashness and negligence, trial court has taken into account mainly the silence on the part of the bus driver regarding his rash and negligent driving. There is also nothing in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 to indicate that claimant was in any manner negligent or he did not keep a safe distance etc. In such circumstances, the decision cited by appellant's counsel is not applicable to the facts of this case and I do not find any merit in this appeal. This appeal is dismissed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou. // True copy // P.A. to Judge