IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1447 of 2008() ----------------------------------- OPMV.1041/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 3rd RESPONDENT --------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NOW REP.BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ''SHARANYA'', HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI 11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. B.V.KUMAR, S/O. M.R.B. MENON, 'SREE VARDHANA', KUTTIKKATTUKARA, UDYOGAMANDAL, ELOOR. 2. MEERA R.NARI (MINOR) AGED 16, D/O. LATE .N. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, REP.BY HER NEXT FRIEND GRAND FATHER IST RESPONDENT. ADV. SRI.K.P.POULOSE FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1447 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, N. Paravur in O.P.(MV) No. 1041/03. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs. 20,500/-. It is against that, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal challenging the finding of negligence rendered by the tribunal. The vehicles involved in the accident are a maruthi car bearing registration No. KL 7/J - 8282 and a bus bearing registration No. KL 8/E -9595. The car was proceeding from north to south and the bus in the opposite direction. The tribunal on consideration of the materials available before it arrived at a decision that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the bus driver. It is that finding which is assailed in this appeal. 2. The learned counsel in the appeal vehementally submits that the tribunal has arrived at a wrong decision and it requires the interference of this Court. The main point that is agreed is that the accident had taken place 2.6 metres east of the western tar end in a road having a width of 6 metres. As the car was proceeding M.A.C.A. 1447/2008 -2- from north to south and since the accident had taken place on the western side of the road, it is contended that the maruthi car was transgressed to the wrong side and therefore the negligence is on the said car driver and not on the bus driver. The maruthi car was hit back to a distance of 8.90 metres and the bus after the accident had proceeded towards north for a distance of 38 metres. The bus was proceeding from south to north and it is recorded that after the hit, bus had proceeded towards south eastern direction to a distance of 38 metres. This will show the uncontrollable manner in which the bus had been driven. Otherwise there was no chance for the bus to proceed to a distance of 38 metres after the impact. This is where exactly the principles of res ipsa loquittor would come into play. It has to be stated when there is a serious accident occurs on account of collision between two vehicles that too, two 4 wheelers the exact place of accident correctly can be ascertained in a situation where there are tyre marks available on the road. Otherwise we would not be able to locate the real place of accident. It has to be stated that when two vehicles are getting involved in an accident and when they come face to face, there will be a desperate attempt made by both the drivers of the vehicle to avert the accident and in the process, one will swerve the vehicle to one side or other side. Therefore one cannot precisely held that the place of accident shown by the police officer as the place of accident after M.A.C.A. 1447/2008 -3- the accident had taken place. It is true that when a bus hits on a maruthi car normally it would have become pulp. But here it has only sustained very severe damages. The learned Tribunal had also noted the damages caused to the bus on the right side and therefore inferred that the maruthi was in its correct side at the time of the alleged accident. The nature of damages referred to in column 8 and 9 of the AMVI report of the bus would show that it had sustained very heavy damages which shows the impact of the accident. The most important fact in this case is that the bus was stationed at a distance of 38 metres away from the place of accident. 3. Therefore I do not find anything wrong with the finding of the tribunal especially in the back drop of the fact that the claimants who were examined as PWs. 1 to 3 had deposed about the negligence of the bus driver and nobody has been examined to prove it otherwise and the attempt of the respondent is to pick up holes in the documents produced to show it otherwise. Therefore I am not inclined to interfere with the finding on negligence by the Tribunal. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm