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 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 MACA.No. 1225 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.186/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ SAMMUEL K., S/O. KALIMUTHU AGED 44 YEARS WEST DIVISION, NYAMAKAD ESTATE, KDH VILLAGE, MUNNAR. BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL SRI.P.NOOR SEMIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. VELLAICHAMY. P., S/O. PARAMAN, PERUMALPATTYKUMARAM P.O., MADHURAI NORTH, TAMIL NADU. 2. M/S.SAKTHI SUGERS LTD., 180 RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATHOOR. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., COIMBATHOOR ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.1225 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.186/2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha. He filed the O.P. under Section 166 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident. The Tribunal by judgment and award dated October 6, 2003 dismissed the O.P. finding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the said finding of the Tribunal. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these : On May 20, 2001 the claimant was riding his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN 59 H 4920 along Munnar-Marayoor public road. When he reached at 5th mile, a car bearing Reg.No. TN 38 H 2700 came at a high speed and dashed against his motor cycle. He sustained MACA.No.1225/2004 2 serious injuries. Alleging negligence against the first respondent, the driver of the car, the claimant filed the O.P .before the Tribunal against respondents 1 to 3, the driver, owner and insurer of the car. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending car remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending car filed a written statement admitting the policy and further contended that the claimant had no driving licence, that he had consumed alcohol at the time of the accident, that the accident occurred due to his negligence and therefore he is not entitled to any compensation from the respondents. 4. The claimant was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked on his side. On the side of the contesting third respondent,Ext.B1 was marked. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the claimant had no driving licence, that he had consumed alcohol at the time of the accident and that therefore the accident occurred due to his negligence and dismissed the O.P. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the said finding of the Tribunal. MACA.No.1225/2004 3 5. Heard the counsel for the claimant and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 6. The following points arise for consideration : 1) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant can be sustained ? 2) Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation from the respondents. If so, what is the quantum ? Point No.1 7. The case of the claimant as testified by him as PW1 before the Tribunal was that while he was driving his motor cycle , a car came on the wrong side and hit him. The claimant relied on Ext.A3 final report submitted by the police in this case charging case against the first respondent. In Ext.P1 copy of the wound certificate , the doctor has recorded that the vehicle that dashed against the motor cycle was a jeep. Further, admittedly, the claimant has no driving licence. Further he had consumed some alcohol at the time of the accident. His explanation is that after the accident some tourists gave him liquor which was not believed by the Tribunal. Only two days after the alleged incident, the matter was reported to the police. MACA.No.1225/2004 4 8. For all these reasons, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in rejecting the evidence of PW1 that accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car and hold that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of PW1. 9. The next question is whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the O.P.. In the present case, the accident is admitted by the contesting third respondent Insurance Company. Third respondent has also admitted the policy of the car involved in the accident. The involvement of the car in the accident is not disputed by the third respondent Insurance Company. Even during the cross examination of PW1, it was not suggested that the car in question was not involved in the accident. That being so, the claimant will be entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for ' no fault liability'. Therefore we hold that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act. 10. In the result, the claimant is found entitled to a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the MACA.No.1225/2004 5 date of petition till realisation. The third respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.1225/2004 6