IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 951 of 2007(B) ----------------------------------- (O.P(MV).NO.1211/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR) .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- THE STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION (T NON-II) TAMILNADU LTD., CHENNAI-2, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, THIRUVALLUR TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT 1 AND 3 TO 5: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PREMAN, S/O. MANI, AKKAARAPURATHU HOUSE, MULLAKKARA DESOM, MANNUTHY P.O., THRISSUR. 2. V. DEVANDRAN, S/O. VADHAN, NO.9, LAKSHMIPURAM, 1ST STREET, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI-49, THIRUNAGAR. 3. STATE OF TAMILNADU, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI. 4. JOSEPH, S/O. MATHEW, KOLLANNUR HOUSE, KANDASSANKADAVU, THRISSUR. 5. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, TRISSUR, PATTLAM ROAD, TRISSUR DIST., R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN, R5 BY SMT.SARAH SALVY. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N. KRISHNAN,J ---------------------- M.A.C.A. No.951 OF 2007 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV).1211/2001. The claimant, the passenger in a car sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.10,500/-. It is against that decision the second respondent in the claim petition has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, claimant and Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would contend that in the petition the claimant has stated that accident had taken place on account of the negligence of both the drivers and therefore, it requires interference with the tribunal's finding that the negligence is only on the bus driver. It has to be stated that the tribunal on materials available has to decide the question of negligence and not purely on the basis of averments in the petition. Admittedly, bus was proceeding from west to east. The correct side of the bus was northern side. A perusal of the scene mahazar reveals MACA. No.951/07 2 that accident has taken place on the southern side of the road. Police has also charge sheeted the driver of the bus. So considering the place of accident coupled with the investigation result it has to be held that driver of the bus was on the wrong side. The tribunal, therefore found that he is responsible for the accident. The said finding does not call for any interference. Considering the nature of injuries and amount awarded, is also proper which also does not require any interference and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sou.