IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 MACA.No. 608 of 2003(B) --------------------------------------- O.P.(MV).210/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/3rd RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT: ------------------------------------------ 1. SASI KUMARAN S/O KESAVAN T.C.22/394/18, D.R.SADANAM KONCHIRAVILA, MANACAUD VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. M.PUSHIKALAMBALA SREE RENJENI, KARAMANA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. KARTHIKA RAJAN S/O RAMA SUBRAMONY, T.C. 21/287, KARAMANA NEDUMCAUD WARD, MANACAUD VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADV. SRI.P.S.RAMESHKUMAR SMT.ACHA RANO MATHEWS.T. SRI.ANNAMMA ABRAHAM SRI.S.JAMES VINCENT FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.608 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of November 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant is the insurer of one of the two vehicles involved in a road traffic accident that occurred on December 22, 1996. 2. The appellant resisted the claim for compensation made by respondent No.1 on the specific plea that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the claimant himself. But the above contention was not fully accepted by the Tribunal which found that the two vehicles had contributed to the accident in the ratio of 25:75. In other words, the Tribunal found that respondent No.1/claimant had contributed to the accident to the extent of 25% whereas respondent No.3 herein was guilty of negligence to the extent of 75%. The claim petition was allowed and the claimant was found entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,15,980/- out of which Rs.86,985/- was directed to be paid by the appellant/insurance company being 75% of the total amount of compensation. The above award is under challenge in this appeal. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the finding of the Tribunal that the claimant was negligent only to the extent of 25% is wholly untenable in as much as the description of the scene of occurrence noted by the investigating agency in Ext.A2 scene mahazar will unambiguously show that the claimant was solely responsible for the accident. Learned counsel has invited our attention to the distance factor as noted by the investigating officer in Ext.A2 scene mahazar. M.A.C.A.No.608 OF 2003 :: 2 :: 4. But it may be noticed that the rider of the other two wheeler, respondent No.3 herein, never bothered to step into the box. On the contrary, not only the claimant who was examined as PW1, but an independent witness who gave evidence as PW3, categorically stated as to how the accident took place. They asserted that the accident occurred because of the rashness and negligence on the part of respondent No.3 herein. This evidence was not controverted. Still further, it is the admitted position that the police had charge sheeted respondent No.3. In the above view of the matter, we do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the finding entered by the Tribunal. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes M.A.C.A.No.608 OF 2003 :: 3 :: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.608 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Dated 2nd November 2010