IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 363 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.252/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT-PETITIONER ---------------------------------- K.A.MOHANDAS, KURUMBALATH HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM, THODUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER HIS WIFE GEETHA OF DO. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. ANIL BABU N.T., RESIDING AT SOUPARNIKA HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM, THODUPUZHA. 2. AJITH KUMAR N.T., NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM, THODUPUZHA. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PARAKULAM BUILDINGS NEAR COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.363 of 2003 .................................................................... Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Even though there is no appearance for the Insurance Company, at our request one of the counsel Mr.V.P.K.Panicker took notice and argued the matter. The appeal is filed challenging the order of the MACT rejecting the claim petition. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 2. Admittedly the accident happened on account of fall of the appellant from the motor bike driven by the first respondent wherein appellant was the pillion rider. Even though first respondent admitted the accident, he pleaded no negligence on his side. We are unable to accept this contention because the fact that vehicle went out of the road and fell into a paddy field itself proves that the rider was unable to control the vehicle. Negligence is intrinsically evident from the accident itself. Therefore, appellant is entitled to recover damages awarded by the MACT from the first respondent-rider. However, we do not find any justification to increase the compensation awarded by the MACT. The third respondent- 2 Insurance Company will not be liable to pay compensation. The appeal is, therefore, allowed holding that appellant is entitled to recover compensation from the first respondent. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms