IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 1961 of 2008(E) ----------------------- OPMV.471/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER -------------------------- PRAMOD.K.R.S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, KARUTHANANTH HOUSE, (MADHUSADANAM) KARUMALLUR P.O. PARAVUR TALUK, EKM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) SRI.MATHEWS V.JACOB (PARAVUR) SRI.N.T.NANDAKUMAR (PARAVUR) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------- 1. SEBASTIAN K.M.S/O. MICHAEL KALAPARAMBU HOUSE. KARUMALLUR P.O., PARAVUR TALUK, EKM DIST. 2. LALU MICHAEL, S/O. MICHAEL KALAPARAMBU HOUSE. KARUMALLUR P.O., PARAVUR TALUK 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, P.M.A. BUILDING BANK JUNCTION. ALUVA.P.O., PIN - 683101`, EKM DIST. BY MATHEWS V. JACOB (PARAVUR) FOR R3. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1961 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P.(MV)471/02. The claimant, a rider of a motorcycle sustained injuries in a road accident when it collided with another motorcycle ridden by the 2nd respondent. There was a case filed by the other respondent as O.P.2271/01. It was a case filed for compensation alleging that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the present claimant. The present claimant entered appearance, filed written statement contending that there was no negligence. But the Tribunal found that he was responsible for the accident and held against him. 2. The award passed in that case has been marked as Ext.B1. So for the very same accident there is a finding rendered by a competent Tribunal holding that the claimant was responsible for the accident. When it is so he is clearly M.A.C.A. 1961 OF 2008 -:2:- estopped from contending otherwise in an independent proceeding regarding the factum of negligence. Ordinarily, if the parties are different the principles of estoppal or resjudicata may not arise. But when the issue that came up for consideration was about the negligence of the claimant and it has been found against him and is affirmed by the said decision it was imperative on his part to have challenged that finding. He had allowed that decision to become final. So he is estopped from again filing another application claiming compensation for him on account of the negligence of somebody. Therefore I do not find any mistake committed by the Tribunal in arriving at the decision that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the claimant. When it is so, being a petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act the claimant is not entitled to any compensation. Therefore the appeal is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-