IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 641 of 2005(B) ----------------------------------- (O.P(MV).NO.1520/1999 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- MADHAVAN NAIR, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, T.C.50/358, MANGATTU VEEDU, KALADY, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SRI.S.VISHNU. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. PRASANNA KUMARI, K.P. VI/195 (A), PRASANTH BHAVAN, CHOWARA, KOTTUKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SASIDHARAN NAIR, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, VETTUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PUNCHAKKARI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH II, 26/1436, GOVT. PRESS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.SARIN PANICKER, SRI.M.R.SASITH, SRI.M.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BABU. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 641 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.(MV) 1520/99. The claimant was riding a motorcycle KL-01/G 1210 and it met with an accident when there was a collision between the said vehicle and an auto rickshaw bearing No. KL-01/C 6078. The learned Tribunal on an exhaustive consideration of the materials held that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the present claimant who was riding the motorbike. A perusal of the award also would reveal regarding the details which the Tribunal has considered. But in the light of the fact that no appeal has been preferred against the finding of negligence rendered in O.P.873/99 where the present appellant is the 2nd respondent, the principles of resjudicata will apply. It has to be held that by virtue of the decision in this case the Court has found that accident took place on M.A.C.A. 641 OF 2005 -:2:- account of the negligence of the claimant herein. He was made liable as the respondent in the connected petition which was filed by the auto persons, the Tribunal had specifically entered into a common finding regarding the negligence. Since no appeal is preferred in O.P.873/99, the question of negligence rendered by the Court has become final. It is also a settled principle when two matters are disposed of by a common judgment where a finding is rendered unless the said findings are challenged in appeals the non preferring of an appeal against one of such decision will operate as resjudicata. Therefore I hold that the claimant is not entitled to succeed in this case for the reason that this appeal cannot be entertained on account of the finality of the decision in the other case. The M.A.C.A. is dismissed accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-