IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 154 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.65/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P.(MV): ----------------------------------------------- BIBIN JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT NELLIMATTATHIL, KUNNACKAL P.O., VALAKOM, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.SAJI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN O.P(MV): -------------------------------------- 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM. 2. JOSE JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, IDIVETTKARA,KARIKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, THODUPUZHA. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.434, ST.JOSEPH'S PRESS BUILDING, VAZHUTHACADU, TRIVANDRUM-14. ADV. SRI.JOE KALLIATH FOR R3 SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON 07/07/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 154 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph Francis, J. This appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.65 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the respondents 1 to 3 in that Original Petition,which was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The allegation is that on 1.10.2001at 10.25 a.m. when the petitioner was riding a motor cycle bearing No. TN/38- A/7447 along Ernakulam - Muvattupuzha road from east to west, a KSRTC bus bearing No. KL-15/2466 driven by the 2nd respondent was proceeding in front of the motor cycle and it stopped suddenly without giving any signal. Though the M.A.C.A.No. 154 of 2006 2 petitioner applied brake, the motor cycle hit behind the bus, as a result of which, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent, who was driving the KSRTC bus. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the KSRTC bus and respondent No.3 is the insurer. 3. In the Claim Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The third respondent filed written statement admitting the policy of KSRTC bus and contended that the accident was not due to the negligence of the second respondent and that the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. Before the Claim Tribunal, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Ext.A1 to 12 were marked. The Claim Tribunal, on considering the evidence, dismissed the petition finding that the petitioner failed to prove that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent. Against that award the petitioner filed this appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. M.A.C.A.No. 154 of 2006 3 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal passed the award without considering documentary and oral evidence adduced by the appellant, where as the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Claims Tribunal arrived at a correct finding regarding the accident. It is now well settled position of law that while considering the claim petition, the Claims Tribunal is required to hold an enquiry and not to act as a criminal court so as to find whether the claimants have established the occurrence beyond any shadow of doubt. In the enquiry, if there is prima facie evidence of the occurrence, there is no reason to disbelieve such evidence. 7. The petitioner was examined as PW1. PW1 deposes that on 1.10.2001 at about 10.25 a.m. he was riding a motor cycle bearing No. TN 38/A 7447 through Ernakulam - Muvattupuzha NH 49 and when he reached near Valakom High School a KSRTC bus over took the motor cycle and suddenly it stopped in front of the motor cycle and when the petitioner applied brake of the motor cycle, it hit behind the M.A.C.A.No. 154 of 2006 4 KSRTC bus. PW1 deposes that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent, who was driving the KSRTC bus. Ext. A4 is copy of F.I. statement given by PW1 before the police. But in that statement, the case of the petitioner is that the KSRTC bus, which was proceeding in front of his motor cycle suddenly stopped without giving any signal and then the motor cycle hit on the bus and the petitioner fell on the road and sustained injuries. 8. PW2 is an eye witness to the accident. PW2 also gave more or less same version as was given by PW1 with regard to the accident. PW3 is an attesting witness to Ext.A5 scene mahazar. The second respondent has not gone to the witness box to give evidence. Therefore an adverse inference can be drawn against him. It is true that, as per Rule 23 of the Rules of Road Regulation, 1989, the driver of the vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep sufficient distance from the other vehicle to avoid collision, if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop. M.A.C.A.No. 154 of 2006 5 9. Rule 13 provides that the driver of a vehicle before slowing down or stopping the vehicle shall give signal. In this case Ext. A4 F.I. statement shows that KSRTC bus stopped suddenly in front of the motor cycle without giving any signal. 10. Considering all these aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the degree of negligence attributable to the second respondent KSRTC bus driver and the appellant, driver of motor cycle would be in the ratio 60:40. Since the Claims Tribunal has not assessed the compensation payable to the petitioner, the case has to be remanded to the Claims Tribunal for assessing the compensation. 11. Accordingly this appeal is allowed. The award dismissing O.P.(M.V) No. 65 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha is set aside and that petition is remanded back to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha for assessing the compensation payable to the petitioner. Sufficient opportunity must be given to both parties to adduce further evidences. The parties M.A.C.A.No. 154 of 2006 6 are directed to appear before the M.A.C.T. Muvattupuzha on 18.8.2009. The parties are directed to suffer their respective cost in this appeal. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm