IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 289 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.1180/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------ DINESH, S/O. NARAYANAN, ELLIKKATTU HOUSE, ELAMAKARA, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-26. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. SOMAN, S/O. GOPALAN, KUKTTYIL (H.O), WARD NO.IV, PATTANAKKAD PANCHAYAT, PANNAVKAD P.O. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHERTHALA, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 289 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Appeal is filed against the award of the MACT rejecting the claim petition filed by the appellant for compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and have gone through the award. The accident is a collision between appellant's car and an autorikshaw, both coming in opposite direction at the time of the accident in National Highway, NH 47. If appellant were to be on the correct side of the road, he would have been on the western side, whereas the accident occurred at the eastern end of the road, which is the correct side of the autorikshaw. Another aspect pointed out by MACT is that even after hitting the autorikshaw, appellant's car went out of the road, hit a wall and caused damage to the vehicle and injury to the passengers, namely the appellant and his wife. The criminal case was charged against the 2 appellant and the Magistrate Court not only convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC but also ordered suspension of his licence for a period of six months. Even though appellant reported that in appeal, Sessions Court acquitted him, we do not find any ground to interfere with the award of MACT because evidence and circumstances prove beyond doubt that accident was caused on account of negligence of the appellant. Appellant cannot be a beneficiary of his own negligence and consequently MACT rightly declined to grant compensation to the appellant, even though his wife, co-passenger, is granted some compensation. Appeal is consequently dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (HARUN-UL-RASHID) Judge. kk 3