IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 767 of 2005(G) ---------------------- OPMV.182/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT. --------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, T.P.CELL, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. UDAYAKUMAR, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, CHEMMANGATTIL HOUSE, P.O. NADUVATTOM, VIA. KUTTIPPURAM, TIRUR TALUK. 2. P.KARUNAKARAN, S/O.KUTTIYAPPU, PATHANAKATH HOUSE, P.O. PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. P.K.MOHANDAS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, POOCHEMKUNNATH HOUSE, P.O.KALADY, EDAPPAL, PONNANI TALUK. ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.NO. 767/2005 ORDER ON I.A. NO.1567/2005 IN M.A.C.A.NO. 767/2005 DISMISSED. SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE 30/09/2008 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. vkm M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 767 OF 2005 --------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirur, in OP(MV) 182/00. The claimant, aged 37 years a bus conductor by profession, sustained injuries in a road accident. It is the case of the claimant that when the bus reached Vaidyermoola a jeep was seen parked on the eastern side of the road. Being the conductor of the said bus he was looking for the space of the road by putting his head through the door of the bus. But, before he had given signal, the driver of the bus had accelerated the bus whereby his hand forcefully hit against a telephone post which resulted in fracture of his hand. The Insurance Company would strongly contend that it was the conductor of the bus who had contributed to the accident by putting his hand outside and therefore the claimant is not entitled to any compensation. 2. At the outset I may like to point out that the driver as well as the conductor, who are the members of the crew, have got a paramount duty to take the passengers to the destination safely and MACA No. 767/05 2 comfortably. When a jeep is seen parked on the side of the road, the driver of the bus has to be meticulously careful to see that the transgression does not result in injury to anybody. There is nothing wrong in the conductor being anxious to see that the driver did not commit the mistake. Since the bus is plying through the route everyday, the driver is expected to be conscious of the factum of the existence of a telephone post on the side of the road. So with that in mind he was expected to drive the vehicle. When the driver feels that there will be real difficulty to cross the road without touching the telephone post ordinarily he is expected to either slow down the bus or stop the bus, get the clearance and then proceed. The allegation in this case is that when the conductor was in the process of looking for that clearance, the driver accelerated the bus which resulted in the accident. 3. I cannot find fault with the conductor for the reason that he was only exercising the act which he is expected to do in order to avoid a hit on the telephone post by the bus. If the driver of the bus had been slow and cautious and had kept a reasonable distance from the telephone post certainly, the conductor's hand would not MACA No. 767/05 3 have come into contact with the said post. So, I cannot hold that the conductor has contributed to the accident resulting in injuries to him. The Tribunal has approached the matter only in the correct perspective and had arrived at a proper decision. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 767/05 4