IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 557 of 2004 OPMV.536/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/APPLICANT: --------------------------------------------------------------- ARAVINDAN P.S. S/O.N.SUKUMARA PILLAI, PANKAJA SADAN, T.C. IX/1265, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE OFFICER COMMANDING, MILITARY INTELLIGENCE, F.S.UNIT, FORT ST.GEORGE, MADRAS - 9. 2. SATHEESH KUMAR, SATHEESH BHAVAN, CHULLALUM JUNCITION, PULLAMPARA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 3. THE DEFENCE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1 & R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.557 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of August 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant is the claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. He claimed compensation from the respondents herein alleging that on December 28, 1996 while he was riding his motor cycle on the road between Maruthankuzhy - Vettamukku in Trivandrum District, the motor cycle driven by respondent No.2 dashed against his bike. Appellant alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. As a result of the accident, he suffered fracture of both bones of left arm. Therefore, he instituted a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondents. 2. In the written statement filed by respondent No.2, it was contended that the accident did not occur because of the alleged rashness and negligence on his part. In fact the appellant himself was responsible for the accident. Respondent No.2 further contended that the appellant was driving his bike at great speed and in an uncontrollable manner. He asserted that the bike of the appellant came and hit against his vehicle. 3. Both sides did not adduce any oral evidence. However, Exts.A1 to A4 documents were marked on the side of the appellant. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the M.A.C.A.No.557 OF 2004 :: 2 :: accident occurred because of the composite negligence of the appellant as well as respondent No.2 and held that both of them were equally responsible for the accident. The Tribunal quantified the amount of compensation at Rs.41,300/- and held that the appellant would be entitled to get 50% of the said amount viz.20,650/-. The above award is under challenge in this appeal. 4. We have perused the impugned award and the documents, which were produced before the Tribunal. We have also heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 5. It is primarily contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal was not justified in holding the appellant also equally responsible for the accident, especially on the face of Ext.A1, First Information Report. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the police had registered a crime against respondent No.2 as revealed from Ext.P1 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 Indian Penal Code. He also places reliance on Ext.P2 scene mahazar. 6. We have carefully perused those documents. Ext.P1 will show that the appellant had gone to the police station and reported the accident only in the evening on January 4, 1997 viz. only on the 7th day of the accident. It is seen stated by the appellant in Ext.P1 that he was discharged from the hospital on the next day of the accident itself. But still the appellant went to the police station only after six days. There is no proper explanation for the delay in lodging the first information report. M.A.C.A.No.557 OF 2004 :: 3 :: 7. There is yet another aspect of the matter. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that going by the scene mahazar the road on which of the accident took place was straight and therefore there was no substance in the contention raised by the appellant that the accident occurred while swerving the vehicle. We do not deem it necessary to deal with the above contention at this stage, especially since the appellant refused to appear before the Tribunal and adduce any oral evidence in support of his contention. Both sides did not choose to assist the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes