IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 2021 of 2007() ----------------------- (OP(MV) 305/02 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA) APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT --------------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, (COIMBATORE DIVISION-I), COIMBATORE 641 043, (OWNER OF THE TN 38 N-0160 BUS). BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.2: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. NARENDRA PREMJI, S/O.PREMJI, MILLYKETY VILLA, 31/683 A, P.T.ROAD, VADAKARA. 2. P.KARUPPUSAMY, S/O.PERIYA GOUNDER, PASIMADAL THOTTAM, DEVARAYAPURAM, THONDAMUTHUR, (VIA) COIMBATORE, DL.NO.3439/CBE/ 1981, (DRIVER OF THE T N 38 N 0160 BUS). BY ADV. SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K. FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 2021 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadakara, in OP(MV) 305/02. The claimant, who was riding the scooter, alleges that he had sustained injuries on account of the negligent driving of the 2nd respondent in the claim petition, who was the rider of the bus. The accident had taken place near Annapporna Hotel at Mettupalayam, Coimbatore. The documents produced before the Tribunal are the registration of a crime Ext.A1 and another document Ext.B1 which would indicate that the criminal court has acquitted the accused. The approach of appreciating the matter in a Claims Tribunal and in the criminal court are totally different for the reason that it is the criminal act of rash and negligence that has to be proved in a criminal case whereas it is only the preponderance that has to be looked into in a civil case. The claimant herein was examined as PW4 before the criminal court and another independent witnesses was also examined. The criminal court acquitted him on the ground that criminal rash and negligence was not proved. PW1 again deposed before the court MACA No. 2021/07 2 regarding the factum of negligence and he had undergone searching cross examination which did not reveal any doubt so as to the aspect intrinsic reliability or inherent probability of version. So there is only one sided evidence in a case of this nature. So this court in the appeal cannot interfere with such a matter unless other materials are available. To crown all these things, the driver of the bus, namely the 2nd respondent, did not mount the box to give evidence. So, I feel this court cannot interfere in such a finding and therefore the question of negligence has to be attributed only on the driver. 2. So far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has relied upon only the medical board certificate and had fixed the income at Rs.1,500/- applied an appropriate multiplier of 13 and had given the compensation. The compensation given on all heads are only just and reasonable as contemplated under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 2021/07 3