IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 521 of 2008(D) --------------------------- OPMV.446/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): /3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., WELLINGTON, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT -------------------------------- 1. ABDUL RASHEED, S/O. MOIDY, RESIDING AT OCHATH VEEDU, P.O.BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE. 2. RAMESAN, S/O. MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT PAVUBAYI, AROOR, P.O.ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 521 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11h day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadakara in O.P.(MV)446/03. The claimant, a driver of the K.S.R.T.C sustained injuries in a road accident when the bus driven by him hit on the back side of a container lorry. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.64,236/-. Challenging the finding on negligence the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for the claimant. Unfortunately the accident took place when a container which was going ahead of the K.S.R.T.C. bus happened to hit a mini lorry which was coming from the opposite direction. As a result of the same the driver of the mini lorry died and the K.S.R.T.C. bus also rammed into the back side of the container lorry resulting in sustainment of injuries to the K.S.R.T.C. driver. M.A.C.A. 521 OF 2008 -:2:- 3. Now the learned counsel for the insurance company would contend when it is hit from behind the normal presumption is that the negligence is on the driver who comes and hits from behind. She would amplify her argument by contending that as per the provisions of the M.V.Act and Rules the driver is expected to keep a reasonable distance of 10 meters from the on going vehicle. If that distance has been kept in tact it is argued that the vehicle would not have hit on the back of the container lorry. It is true the law mandates to keep a reasonable distance of 10 meters. At the same time we must be also conscious and aware of the nature of traffic which is there in our State. The traffic congestion is so much that we find vehicles are moving even without a gap of one meter. Therefore it may not be always possible to keep a distance. But that does not mean that they need not keep the distance and drive the vehicle. Here the unfortunate situation arose only on account of a collision between the vehicle on the front side with a vehicle coming from opposite direction. There was a M.A.C.A. 521 OF 2008 -:3:- terrific impact when the container struck on the mini lorry and in split of a moment then the K.S.R.T.C bus also came and rammed into the back side of the container lorry. So it was a totally unexpected thing for the K.S.R.T.C. driver and therefore he shall not be blamed totally for the accident and the accident really took place on account of the factum of a hit on its front side between two vehicles. Still he was expected to keep a reasonable distance or should have kept some side in order to avert the accident. It is always to be expected that the on moving vehicle may stop abruptly and that is why the law envisages to keep a distance of 10 meters. But taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case I feel it is sufficient if I hold that the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus also has contributed 20% to the accident which will become a contributory negligence. Or in other words the compensation for 20% has to be reduced from the award amount. When 20% is reduced it would come to Rs.51,388/- which I round as Rs.51,400/-. M.A.C.A. 521 OF 2008 -:4:- 4. In the result a revised award is passed in favour of the claimant and he is awarded a compensation of Rs.51,400/- with 6% interest only from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment and with a cost of Rs.1,750/- as ordered by the Tribunal. The rest of the findings regarding the Court fee, deposit etc. as passed by the Tribunal is retained. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-