IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 MACA.No. 839 of 2004(B) ----------------------------------- [O.P(M.V).NO.441/2001 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA] .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, (MADURAI-DIVISION III) LTD., NAGERCOIL. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH SYRIAC. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THULASI, D/O.CHELLAMMA, ALUNINNA VEEDU, NEAR CHOWARA TEMPLE, KOTTUKAL, CHOWARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. R.SREEDHARAN, HOUSE 12/65, NEAR MUSLIM MOSQUE, MANAVALAKURICHI, KALKULAM, KANYAKUMARI. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3 BY V V NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, S.C, K.S.R.T.C THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= M.A.C.A. No. 839 of 2004 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation who is the first respondent in O.P.(MV) No.441 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara. In this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated September 1, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs.9,750/- to the claimant who is the first respondent herein for the loss caused to her on account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident. 2. The accident happened on April 16, 1999 at about 5.30 p.m. While the claimant was traveling in a K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.KL-15/3023 along Pulluvila – Marappalam road, it collided head on with a Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN-54/N- 0517, driven by the second respondent in the O.P. The claimant sustained generalized body ache and tenderness on MACA 839/2004 2 the back of head. Alleging negligence against the second respondent in the O.P., the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P., the owner and driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus, filed a written statement attributing negligence to the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus. The third respondent in the O.P., the Managing Director of the K.S.R.T.C. bus filed a written statement admitting the accident, but attributed negligence to the second respondent in the O.P.. The claimant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A8(l) were marked on the side of the claimant. RW1 was examined on the side of the respondents in the O.P.. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence of the second respondent in the O.P. and awarded a compensation of Rs.9,750/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization against respondents 1 and 2. The first respondent in the O.P. has come up in appeal challenging the finding of the Tribunal MACA 839/2004 3 regarding negligence. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant, counsel for the claimant and the standing counsel for the K.S.R.T.C. 5. The following points arise for consideration:- “1) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the accident happened due to negligence of the second respondent can be sustained? 2) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive? 6. Point No.1:- The counsel for the appellant argued that this being a collision between the two vehicles, the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus involved in the accident is also equally negligent in causing the accident. There is no merit in the above contention. The claimant as PW1 testified in a convincing manner regarding the negligence of the second respondent. Nothing was brought out to discredit her evidence. Further her evidence is supported by a copy of the police charge Ext.A4. The police has charged the case against the second respondent in the O.P.. The second respondent in the O.P., the driver of the bus belonging to Tamil Nadu State MACA 839/2004 4 Transport Corporation Ltd., as RW1 testified before the Tribunal that there was no negligence on his part. The Tribunal has not chosen to believe his evidence. On going through his evidence, I find no reason to come to a different conclusion. The evidence of PW1 regarding negligence is supported by the fact that the police has charged the case against the second respondent. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal is perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the second respondent. Therefore, we confirm the said finding of the Tribunal. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. No other point is argued before us. That being so the appeal has to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn