IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 683 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.610/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ----------------------------------- SASI, S/O.GOPALAN, R/A. AT CHITTISSERY HOUSE, NENMANIKKARA, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SMT.M.R.VALSA SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. ABDUL HAMEED, R/A. VATTAM THARAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.KAIPPARAMBU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. JOSE, S/O.FRANCIS, R/A. AT KUTTIKKATT HOUSE, THALAKOTTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.C.CHARLES FOR R1 SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN FOR R1 SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN FOR R1 SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 683 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(M.V) No. 610 of 2000 on the file of the M.A.C.T., Thrissur. The said petition was disposed of by the Claims Tribunal, along with O.P.(M.V) No. 727 of 2000. 2. The appellant was driving a motor cycle. It was involved in an accident, in which the motor cycle hit a scooter, which was driven by the second respondent. The Tribunal has found that it was the appellant who was negligent. The appellant was allowed to realise a sum of Rs.25,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the petition till realisation and costs of Rs.250/- The appellant impugns the award in this appeal. M.A.C.A.No. 683 of 2004 2 3. The Tribunal allowed O.P.(M.V) No.727 of 2000 filed by the pillion rider against the appellant and the Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.21,750/ 4. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the accident took place at 7 p.m., but the mahazar was prepared only on the next day. 6. According to the appellant also there was a pillion rider on the scooter, who was carrying a 'ammikallu' and the accident occurred only because of the imbalance introduced by the weight of the 'ammikallu'. He would further submit that the investigation into the matter, by which the police charge sheeted the appellant, was commented upon by the Magistrate. He complains that these aspects are not seen considered. He does not dispute the fact that he was convicted for negligence. But the appellate court acquitted him. The appellant filed a complaint, which led to proceedings against the second respondent, which also ended in acquittal of the second respondent. The learned M.A.C.A.No. 683 of 2004 3 counsel for the appellant would further point out that at worst there could be a finding of contributory negligence against the appellant. 7. The learned counsel for the second respondent, on the other hand, pointed out that he had filed O.P.(M.V) 631 of 2008 and therein the appellant was set ex parte. The matter was settled by the Insurance Company accepting negligence of the appellant. The order in that case has become final. More over, it is pointed out that O.P.(M.V) 727 of 2000 filed by the pillion rider, Unnikrishnan, stands awarded against the appellant and the Insurance Company. He further points out that Unnikrishnan filed M.A.C.A. 699 of 2004 before this Court and therein also the finding had been confirmed. Therefore, in the light of these circumstances, it may not be open for the appellant to challenge the finding of negligence against him. 8. We notice that admittedly O.P. (M.V) 727 of 2000 was decided against the appellant and an award was passed. It stands confirmed in appeal. The appellant was a party and he was represented in both these proceedings. It cannot also be ignored that the petition filed by the second respondent also stands settled M.A.C.A.No. 683 of 2004 4 apparently on the basis of the payment agreed to by the Insurance Company accepting negligence of the appellant. 9. We notice that both the appellant and the second respondent have been acquitted by the criminal court. We are not pointed out any material discrepancy to interfere otherwise. In the light of the totality of facts and circumstances, we find that there is no merit in this appeal. 10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm