IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 1653 of 2009(F) ----------------------- OPMV.3149/1998 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): IST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- P.J.RAPHEAL,AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.SRI.JOSEPH,PANEKATTU HOUSE,NEAR ST.RAPHEAL CHURCH,THYKOODAM,COCHIN-19. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SANDEEP.M.S,AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SRI.P.K.SOMAN,MANAMEL HOUSE,THYKOODAM, VYTTILA.P.O,KOCHI-19. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,BY ITS MANAGER,M.T.P.C OFFICE,VETTUKATTIL BUILDING, M.G.ROAD,COCHIN-16. 3. M.K.SUNIL,AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAPPAN,MANAMEL HOUSE,THYKOODAM,VYTTILA.P.O, COCHIN-19. 4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,REGL.OFFICE, METRO PALACE, GROUND FLOOR, OPP.NORTH RAILWAY STATION,KOCHI-18. ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1653 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV)3149/98. He was the rider of the bike which got involved in an accident. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows. 2. The motorcycle ridden by the appellant was proceeding from north to south. When it reached the place of accident it appears that a scooter which was coming from a pocket road was attempting to cross the road and both of them had collided resulting in injuries to the persons travelling in the vehicle. The Police after due investigation found that both the riders are not negligent. The police was of the opinion that one lorry was coming in a hectic speed overtaking another lorry and in that process these vehicles got involved in the accident. I feel such an approach may be erroneous for the following reasons. M.A.C.A. 1653 OF 2009 -:2:- 3. A scooter was coming from a pocket road to join a main road. It is a settled position that when you want to join a main road it is always stated 'halt and proceed'. It means the persons who is coming from a side road is expected to stop the vehicle and see that there is road clearance from two sides so as to join the road or to cross the road. Therefore there is a serious responsibility on the rider of the vehicle coming from the pocket road to the main road. It is seen that the present claimant was only proceeding from north to south and his correct side was eastern side. A reading of the award would reveal that the place of accident is only 55 cm. west of the eastern tarred end or in other words the accident had taken place only on the eastern extremity of the road. So one could not say that the motorcyclist was totally negligent. But at the same time it is clear that the scooterist had also entered the main road. That is why the place of accident is on the main road. The road is having a straight vision in the area and it is a national high way having a width of 8.5 mtr. It is also the M.A.C.A. 1653 OF 2009 -:3:- responsibility of the local people who are conversant with the place to slow down the vehicle when a pocket road is joining the high way for the reason that they are aware of the existence of such pocket roads. If he had also come at a reasonable speed and bestowed better care he could have also averted the accident. But the negligence is more on the person coming from the pocket road and had caused the accident. Therefore I modify the percentage of negligence by fixing 70% on the scooterist and 30% on the motorcyclist. The compensation awarded is Rs.12,420/- of which the claimant will be entitled to get 70% which means he will be entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,694/- which I round Rs.8,700/- In the result a revised award is passed in favour of the claimant and he is awarded a compensation of Rs.8,700/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the 2nd respondent, insurance company is directed to deposit the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. If any M.A.C.A. 1653 OF 2009 -:4:- amount is already in deposit only the balance need to be deposited. If Court fee is yet to be paid before the Court below let that also be paid. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-