IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 744 of 2004() -------------------------------- OPMV.308/1998 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & 4TH RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P. PRABHAKUMARI, W/O. LATE N.R.K. NAIR, RESIDING AT DEVI NIVAS, VISWAMBARAN ROAD, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-18. 2. SREEDEVI, D/O. LATE N.R.K. NAIR, DO. DO. 3. G. VENUGOPAL, S/O. GANGADHARAN NAIR, TC-8/913, KAMALYAM, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE FOR R3 SRI.VAZHUTHACAD R.NARENDRAN NAIR FOR R1 & R2 SRI.HARISH R. MENON FOR R1 & R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ J.B. KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C. A.NO: 744 OF 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th August, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy, J. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal contending that the vehicle driven by the additional fourth respondent (before the Tribunal) was hit by a van insured by the appellant. Husband of the first claimant who was travelling as a pillion rider in the motor cycle sustained serious injuries and died. Originally the claim was filed against the driver, owner and insurance company of the van. But when it was contended by the insurance company that accident occurred due to the negligence of rider of the scooter itself rider of the scooter was made a party as additional fifth respondent. Contention of the Insurance Company is that the van was stationery and the scooter hit behind the van. But the Tribunal, from the evidence accepted the contention of the claimant that the scooter was coming behind the van which was originally stationery on the side, without noticing the scooter negligently started and turned to the middle of the road. Therefore, due to the negligence of the van driver accident occurred. The Tribunal also considered the scene mahazar, FIR and charge sheet. On preliminary investigation the police found that the driver of the van was guilty and he was charge sheeted by Ext.A6 charge sheet. The defence taken by the appellant was not proved before the MACA 744/04 2 Tribunal to adduce any evidence. P.W.1, wife of the deceased was not an eye witness. Both sides relied on documentary evidence regarding the cause of negligence and documents including charge sheet were marked and based on the evidence arrived at Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the van, insured by the appellant. We see no ground to interfere. No other grounds are pressed before us. Appeal is dismissed. J.B. KOSHY Judge THOMAS P. JOSEPH Judge jj K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: