IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 14 of 2007() --------------------- OPMV.82/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- PAULOSE @ SUNNY, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 47, RESIDING AT NARAKATHUNGAL HOUSE, VAZHAPPILLY, MUDAVOOR P.O., VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SRI.K.U.JOSEPH, KANNAMKULATH HOUSE, MEENACHILKARA, LALAM VILLAGE, PALA, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 14 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha,in OP(MV) 82/03. The claimant, who was the rider of the scooter with his wife as a pillion rider, met with an accident on account of the collision between the scooter and the KSRTC bus resulting in the death of his wife and sustainment of injuries to the claimant. The Tribunal found that both the riders have contributed equally to the accident and fixed the compensation of Rs.8,050/- and awarded Rs.4,025/- as compensation to the claimant. It is challenging the finding of negligence as well as the quantum, the appeal is preferred by the claimant. 2. Heard the counsel for both sides. It is an unfortunate accident where the claimant herein who is an Accountant of the bank had sustained injuries and lost his wife. The Tribunal found that the claimant did not have a permanent licence but have only a learners licence and therefore held that he has contributed to the accident MACA No. 14/07 2 very much. The Tribunal did not find in favour of the contention that the wife who was travelling as a pillion rider did have a valid driving licence as contemplated under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is true that absence of a licence is material. But absence of a licence alone cannot be the criteria to attribute negligence. In such circumstances the court has to analyse the evidence and find out whether the person who had driven the vehicle without due compliance of the statutory requirements has caused the accident on account of his inexperience or so. The claimant was proceeding in his scooter along the main road and a KSRTC bus was coming from behind. The claimant had to take a turn so as to drop his wife in the school and in the process of turning the vehicle, the accident took place. The road is having a clear vision of 200 meters at the place of the accident. It is deposed by the claimant that he had shown signals atleast 25 meter before turning. A distance of 25 meters approximately works out to 83 to 85 feet and any prudent driver coming from behind could have averted a serious accident by reducing the speed or by swerving the vehicle. The driver of the KSRTC bus has not been examined at all in this case. The police MACA No. 14/07 3 has charge sheeted the KSRTC driver for negligent driving. The Tribunal mainly basing upon the absence of the regular licence came to the conclusion of negligence. It is true that the claimant has purchased the scooter only four months prior to the accident, as is evidenced from the award. He is a responsible officer of the bank and his wife was a teacher. Under ordinary circumstances, he would not have driven the vehicle in such a rash and negligent manner so as to invite the accident. The whole accident had taken place on account of the error of judgment which normally causes many accidents. When it is accepted that he had shown the signal for turning atleast at a distance of 25 meters from the bus, especially being a driver of the heavy vehicle there was an imperative duty cast upon the KSRTC driver to take more care. That does not mean that the rider of the scooter has to be simply spared. 3. So taking into consideration the nature of the vehicles involved in the accident, the place of accident and the attendant circumstances, I feel that the negligence has to be fixed more on the driver of the KSRTC bus. Therefore, I hold that the negligence has to be apportioned in the ratio of 70% on the KSRTC driver and 30% MACA No. 14/07 4 on the scooterist. To that extent, the question of negligence is modified. 4. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal in para. 15 of the award has held that the claimant had three abrasions and two lacerations. Taking into consideration all these materials, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.8,050/- which I do not find as an unjust compensation. Therefore, the quantum of compensation does not call for any interference. In the light of the modification of the finding on the question of negligence, the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,635/- instead of Rs.4,025/-. To that extent, the award is modified and the interest ordered by the Tribunal is maintained. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 14/07 5