IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 MACA.No. 1031 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.273/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT: 3RD RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ALUVA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.JACOB MATHEW.P. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6: ------------------------------------------------- 1. SARATH, S/O. K.S.MENON, KOLLATT HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD P.O., KOCHI TALUK. 2. SMT.USHA, W/O. MOHAN, 32/930, PIPELINE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25. 3. SANDEEP MENON, S/O. K.MOHAN, `ARCHANA', ELAMKUNNAPUZHA P.O., KOCHI TALUK. 4. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KANNANKERI ESTATE, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, KOCHI-31. (NO RELIEFS AND CLAIMED AGAINST RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION AND HENCE THEY ARE NOT MADE PARTIES IN THIS APPEAL). ADV. SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) FOR R1 SRI.MATHEWS V.JACOB (PARAVUR) FOR R1 SRI.N.T.NANDAKUMAR (PARAVUR) FOR R1 SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD FOR R4 SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.1031 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the third respondent Insurance Company in O.P.(MV)No.273/2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, N.Paravur. In this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated February 11, 2005 awarding a compensation of Rs. 6,70,044/- to the claimant, who is respondent No. 1 in this appeal, for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on May 15, 2001. 2. The accident happened while the claimant was pillion riding on the scooter bearing Reg.No.KL 7 G 7469 ridden by the fifth respondent in the O.P. along Vypin-Munambam public road. When he reached at Njarakkal, he was knocked down by the jeep bearing Reg.No.KEZ 637 driven by the second respondent in the O.P. Alleging negligence against the drivers of both the vehicles, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of MACA.No.1031/2005 2 Rs. 10,00,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P., the owner and the driver of the offending jeep remained absent before the Tribunal. Respondents 4 and 5 in the O.P., the owner and the rider of the offending scooter also remained absent before the Tribunal. Respondent Nos.3 and 6, the insurers of the offending vehicles filed written statements admitting the policy of the respective vehicles. 4. Pws 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A10 series were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the contesting respondents. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent in the O.P., the driver of the jeep and awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,70,044/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation against respondents 1 to 3. The third respondent Insurance Company has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as the finding of the Tribunal regarding the negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep. MACA.No.1031/2005 3 5. Heard the counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and the counsel for the claimant. 6. The accident is not disputed. The following points arise for consideration ; 1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent, the driver of the jeep involved in the accident can be sustained ? 2. Whether there was also negligence on the part of the rider of the scooter, the fifth respondent ? 7. Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company of the offending jeep argued that in the O.P., the claimant contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of respondents 2 and 5, the drivers of the jeep and the scooter and that therefore the Tribunal went wrong in holding that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the second respondent. There is no merit in the above contention. The police has charged the case against the second respondent as revealed from Ext.A1 copy of the police charge. The judgment in the criminal case shows that second respondent has pleaded guilty before the Magistrate court and he was convicted and MACA.No.1031/2005 4 sentenced in that case. That part, PW1, the claimant and PW2, another occurrence witness have categorically stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent, the driver of the jeep which was not shaken in cross examination. Further, the driver of the jeep, the second respondent, has not chosen to come forward and swear that there was no negligence on his part or to show that there was also negligence on the part of the rider of the scooter. For all these reasons, we find that the Tribunal is perfectly justified in finding that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the second respondent, the driver of the jeep. No other point is argued before us. That being so, we find no merit in this appeal and the same has to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.1031/2005 5 MACA.No.1031/2005 6