IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 675 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.361/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- JAYAN. R., S/O. RAGHAVA PANICKER, AGED 30 YEARS, H.NO.T.C.2811, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. M. VYTHEESWARAN, S/O. MUTHUSWAMY KATTUKKOTTAI, KOTTAPPATHU, SASTHAMPETI, PONNAGRAM, DHARMAPURI DIST., TAMIL NADU STATE. 2. RAJENDRAN. V., S/O. VYRUN.D., DANISHPETTAH STREET, AATHOORDESOM, OMALLOOR VILLAGE, SALEM, TAMIL NADU. 3. NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER, 39-C BY PASS ROAD, DHARMAPURI DIST., TAMIL NADU. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss A.K.BAHSEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= M.A.C.A. No. 675 of 2003 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant in O.P. (MV) No.361 of 2000 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated September 29, 2001 dismissing the Original Petition. 2. The facts leading to this appeal, in brief, are these:- On April 30, 1999 at about 3.30 A.M. the claimant was driving a goods lorry bearing registration No. KL-2D 148 from Thiruvananthapuram to Thrissur and when the lorry reached near Irinjalakuda Junction, it collided head on with another lorry bearing registration No.TN-29A 9169, driven by the second respondent. The claimant sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by the second respondent. First respondent as the owner, second respondent as the driver and third MACA 675/2003 2 respondent as the insurer of the offending lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 3. Respondents remained absent and were set ex parte by the Tribunal. 4. Claimant was examined as PW1 and and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of evidence, found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant and second respondent and that therefore, the claimant is not entitled to get any compensation. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the said finding of the Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the counsel for Insurance Company. 6. it is seen from Ext.A3 copy of the charge that the police has registered a case against the claimant, which prima facie shows that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant. The claimant has not chosen to examine any independent witness to prove that there was MACA 675/2003 3 no negligence on his part or to show that there was negligence on the part of the second respondent. That apart, the second respondent died in the accident. 7. For all these reasons, we feel that the Tribunal is perfectly justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the claimant and that therefore he is not entitled to any compensation. That being so, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn.