IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1249 of 2004() ---------------------------------- OPMV.390/1999 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT ---------------------------------- K.RAVEENDRAN, S/O. KESAVAN, KUNNUMPURATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, ERAPPUKUZHI, KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O., TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.SABU SREEDARAN SRI.VIMAL KUMAR.A.V. SRI.A.G.GIRISH KUMAR RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. BABU S/O. GANGADHARAN, PINATHINKUZHY VEEDU, VETTAMPALLY, IRINJAYAM, ANADU, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 2. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, C.W.C. BUILDING, L.M.S. COMPOUND, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1249 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal in O.P.(MV)390/99. The claimant while driving a scooter met with an accident on account of a collision between an auto pickup van resulting in injuries to him. The question that was considered by the Tribunal was regarding the negligence aspect. The Tribunal categorically found that the rider of the scooter was negligent and therefore dismissed the claim petition with a cost of Rs.500/- each to the respondents. It is against that decision, the claimant has come in appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant very strongly and persuasively submits before me that the Tribunal had erred in arriving at the finding on negligence. He had also read the scene mahazar and it can be seen that the scooter was proceeding from west to east. The accident had taken place 40 cms. north of the southern tarred end in a road M.A.C.A. 1249 OF 2004 -:2:- which is having a width of 6 mtrs. It is also not disputed that the claimant was attempting to turn the vehicle to cross the road. It is a settled principle of law that when a person wants to turn the vehicle he must show not only appropriate signal but he has to meticulously follow the principle of halt and proceed so that he can avoid the probability of an accident. One cannot find fault with the driver of the pickup van for the reason he was coming only through his correct side. One has to always envisage a situation that no driver will try to get involved in an accident and that desperate attempts are made by the drivers to avert the accident and in that process the vehicles are likely to swerve to this side or that side. So even if the case is viewed in a liberal angle, by the documents produced by the claimant himself it is established that he was extremely on the wrong side and he had not taken proper care. It was the pillion rider travelling in the scooter who filed the First Information Statement before the police and a crime was registered. Ultimately on enquiry the investigating agency found that it was the rider M.A.C.A. 1249 OF 2004 -:3:- of the scooter who was negligent and therefore he was charge sheeted. It is true that ultimately he was acquitted. But there is an ocean of difference between a trial in a criminal case and that in a civil case for the reason that in criminal cases it is the criminal rashness and negligence whereas in civil cases it is the negligence. The constable who conducted the investigation had been examined as RW1 and he had categorically asserted before the Court about the conduct of enquiry and how he found that the claimant was responsible for the accident. The very statement of PW2 which was the basis for setting the law in motion turned against the pillion rider on enquiry which means that the evidence of PW2 or the statement of PW2 was not acceptable on enquiry. It is only that evidence which is again made available before this Court. So on an analysis the Tribunal has come to the right decision and I do not want to interfere with the said decision. But the fact remains that the claimant had sustained injuries and he should not be directed to pay costs also when he does not even get the M.A.C.A. 1249 OF 2004 -:4:- compensation. Therefore I take a sympathetic view in that matter and delete the order regarding payment of costs. In the result the MACA is disposed of whereby the dismissal of the claim petition is confirmed but the order directing payment of costs is vacated and therefore the O.P. (MV) petition is dismissed without costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-