IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1315 of 2007(C) ------------------------------------- OP(MV).NO.264/2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/ 3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTHAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA). RESPONDENTS/ CLAIMANT: ---------------------------------------- 1. M.C.THANKAPPAN,S/O. MAKKI, MANJINAKKUDY HOUSE, IRUMALAPPADY PANIPRA. P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGAING DIRECTOR. R2 BY ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 26089/ 2007 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.1315/2007 & WP(C)Nos.26089, 26090, 26091, 26092 & 26105 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 21st day of November 2008 JUDGMENT M.A.C.A.No.1315/2007 is preferred against the award in O.P.(MV) No.264/2003, W.P.(C)No.26089/2007 against O.P.(MV)No.624/2003, W.P.(C)No.26090/2007 against O.P.(MV)No.512/2003, W.P.(C) No.26191/2007 against O.P.(MV)No.677/2003, W.P.(C)No.26092/2007 against O.P.(MV)No.708/2003 and W.P.(C)No.26105 of 2007 against O.P. (MV)No.641/2003 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. 2. In all these cases by virtue of a common award the Tribunal found that the private bus which collided with the KSRTC bus is totally responsible for the accident. There were connected appeals of which one is MACA.No.1316/2007. After considering the entire materials, this Court held that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of both the drivers and apportioned the negligence at 60% on the private bus driver and 40% on the KSRTC driver. The same has to be followed in all these cases. 3. So far as the maintainability of the writ petitions are concerned, MACA 1315/2007 & con. cases -:2:- since the amount awarded is less than Rs.10,000/-, writ petitions are filed and under ordinary circumstances, the court is not expected to entertain a writ petition. But, it has to be stated that when there is a common order out of which some are appealable and the other are non-appealable and as the provision of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not extended to the Tribunals under Rule 395 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be exercised and it has been done by this Court in some cases as well. Therefore I entertain all the writ petitions as well. In the light of my finding in M.A.C.A.No.1316 of 2007 and connected cases, the accident had taken place on account of the negligence to a tune of 60% by the private bus driver and 40% by the KSRTC driver the compensation awarded has to be apportioned and it has to be paid by the KSRTC as well as the insurance company. Or, in other words, in all these cases, 60% of the amount awarded with interest and 60% of the cost, if any, is to be deposited by the Oriental Insurance company and 40% of the amount awarded plus interest plus 40% of the cost be deposited by the KSRTC. MACA 1315/2007 & con. cases -:3:- To this extent the appeal and the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-