IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 236 of 2007(F) ---------------------- OPMV.264/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- BELL LEASING AND HIRE PURCHASE LTD., 40/9715M 1ST FLOOR, BHAGEERATHA SANTHWANA, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.P. KURIAKOSE, AGED 52 YEARS,S/O.PAULOSE, KOTTANATH HOUSE, KADAYIRUPPU P.O., KOLENCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV): ------------------------------------- 1. MR.P.A.PURUSHAN, PARAKANATHIL HOUSE, THIRUMARADY P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM. 2. MR. JOY, S/O. MATHAI PAULOSE, MOOPPATTIL HOUSE, EZHIPRAM KARA, AIKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CITY BRANCH, PAREKULAM BUILDING, KOTTAYAM-2. 4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BANK JUNCTION, ALWAYE-1. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R4 SRI.T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 236 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)264/02. The claimant in this case is the owner of a tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-7L/5598. A lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-7P- 3897 was moving in front of the tipper lorry. According to the claimant the driver of the ongoing lorry applied sudden break which necessitated sudden application of break by the driver of him also and that had resulted in the accident. The Tribunal did not find in favour of the claimant and dismissed the claim petition. I had bestowed my attention to the facts after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. The driver of the claimant's lorry was examined as PW1. He had stated before the Tribunal that the vehicle which was moving ahead of it was proceeding at a distance of 50 mtrs. The Tribunal found that the 2nd respondent therein has applied the break as an attempt to surmount a M.A.C.A. 236 OF 2007 -:2:- hump on the road. According to the claimant's driver there had been a distance of 50 mtrs. in between the vehicles and even if the driver of the first moving vehicle had applied sudden break a driver from behind driving the vehicle at a reasonable speed and cautiously, by any stretch of imagination, he could have applied break and stopped the vehicle and there would not have been any opportunity to go and hit from behind. There is a presumption under law that a driver of a vehicle coming behind has to keep a reasonable distance. Here the distance is 50 mtrs. If the driver of a vehicle coming from behind is not able to stop his vehicle where the distance between the two vehicle is about 160 ft. one can just visualize and imagine the rashness in which that vehicle had been driven. I totally agree with the finding of the Tribunal regarding the negligence of the driver and therefore for his own servant's conduct an owner cannot claim compensation and therefore the Tribunal was right in dismissing the application. Therefore the appeal is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-