IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 MACA.No. 527 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.367/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ------------------ T.S.SHAJI, S/O.SREEDHARAN, RESIDING AT OOTHUMIKALAYIL HOUSE, KALLADIKKODE P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS. --------------------- 1. CHANDRA BOSE, S/O.MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT KUNDUKAD HOUSE, PICHALAMADA KUNNU, MUTHUKURUSSI, P.O., PALAKKAD. 2. K.E.SAHADEVAN, S/O.KANDAYI, RESIDING AT ERUMENI HOUSE, KARIMBA(PALLIPADY)MANNARKKAD, TALUK, PALAKKAD. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,1 0/290, G.B.ROAD, POST BOX NO.61,PALAKKAD. 4. K.HAMSZA, S/O.LATE VEERAN RESIDING AT PULIKKANEM KUNNATH HOUSE, VALEMCHERY, MORAYUR VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM. * 5. P.M.MOOSE, S/O.P.MOHAMMED RESIDING AT PICHANAMADATHIL HOUSE, KODUR, MALAPPURAM (NAME OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 7.10.2009 IN I.A.NO.2732/09) 6. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 3-SUNITHA BUILDING, IIND FLOOR D.B.ROAD, R.S.PURAM, COIMBATORE. BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN FOR R3 & R6 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 527 of 2003 ------------------------------- Dated this the 19th October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ramachandra Menon, J. This appeal is filed against the common Award in O.P.(M.V.) No.367 of 1996 (and connected cases), on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. 2. The grievance of the appellant/claimant is mainly against the deduction of the compensation by 50% because of the 'contributory negligence' on his part, who was engaged as the Checker in the public service vehicle involved in the accident. There occurred a collision between two buses on 3.10.1995. The appellant was engaged as a Checker in one of the above two buses and because of the collision, the persons travelling in the bus got injured, besides the injuries caused to the appellant in the present proceedings, which led to separate claim petitions. All the above cases were tried by the Tribunal M.A.C.A.No.527 of 2003 2 jointly, leading to the common Award passed, fixing the negligence equally on the drivers of both the vehicles. 3. The claim was resisted only from the part of the Insurance Company, who is the Insurer of both the vehicles. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of Pws.1 and 2 and the documentary evidence, Exts.A1 to A42 marked on the part of the petitioners who preferred claim petitions. On conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal, based on the specific finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles, held that the liability has to be shared in the ratio of 50:50 between the parties of the vehicles. 4. After taking note of the very nature of engagement of the claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No.367/1996, his age, income and other aspects, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.38,540/=. In view of the detailed discussion and the materials borne out by the records, we find that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are very M.A.C.A.No.527 of 2003 3 much proper, reasonable and hence do not call for any interference. 5. However, while coming to granting compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the appellant, the Tribunal, referring to the contentions raised by the Insurance Company that the appellant herein, who was admittedly engaged as a 'Checker' in one of the buses, was also liable to answer the question of negligence, (in so far as he had a duty to supervise the Conductor, on whose instructions the bus was being driven by the concerned driver), observed that the said claimant was also negligent to an extent of 50%. Accordingly, out of the total compensation of Rs.38,540/=, 50% was reduced towards the alleged contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and only the balance was ordered to be disbursed with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, which course has been subjected to challenge in the present appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company made an attempt to assert that the course pursued by the M.A.C.A.No.527 of 2003 4 Tribunal is very much correct and sustainable, particularly, in view of the fact that the 'Checker' engaged in a bus stands on a much higher pedestal in relation to the duties cast upon him. However, it is explicitly clear from Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act that the liability cast upon the Insurance Company in respect of a 'public transport vehicle' is inclusive of the liability towards the person engaged in examining the tickets of the vehicle. Obviously, the Statute has never contemplated any duty upon such person engaged in examining the tickets to supervise the driving of the vehicle. As such, absolutely no liability can be mulcted upon such a person and the finding of the Tribunal to the contrary is not at all correct or sustainable. 7. In the above circumstances, we find that the Award passed by the Tribunal deducting a sum of Rs.19,270/= from the total compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No.367 of 1996, is thoroughly wrong and misconceived, and hence, the same is set aside. It is made clear that the appellant is very much entitled to have the entire M.A.C.A.No.527 of 2003 5 compensation of Rs.38,540/= with interest as ordered by the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. No costs. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. nj.