IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 1280 of 2010(E) ----------------------- OPMV.1014/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------- RENSON MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 33 YEARS, KALARICKAL HOUSE, PERATTA, KOOTTUPUZHA P.O BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND SUPPL. RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 --------------- 1. SHAJI A.T, S/O.RAVEENDRAN ARAYAKANDY THALL HOUSE, PAPPINISSERI PO 2. M.V.VENU S/O VASU, AGED 40 YEARS METHALLOOR HOUSE, PERATTA, KOOTTUPUZHA P.O. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE -2 P.B.N0.437 RAS BUILDING, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR 4. A.K.PADMINI AMMA W/O. P.M.RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR VANISREE NILAYAM, PERUMTHATTIL PO,THALASSERY 5. POOLERI KALLULLI RAMAKRISHNAN S/O. P.M.RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR, KRISHNA VILASAM, MUZHAKKUNNU , P.O. PALAPPUZHA 6. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO, LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 1280 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: AUGUST 4, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. The appellant is the claimant in OP(MV) 1014/2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. He sustained very serious injuries in a motor accident that occurred on April 14, 2002. The accident happened while he was pillion riding on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KRN 5736 from Paravoor to Koottupuzha and when he reached at Ayichoth at about 7.45 p.m., the motorcycle collided head on with a mini lorry bearing registration No. KL-13F 4646. Claiming a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs he filed the OP before the Tribunal under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging negligence against the 2nd respondent, rider of the motorcycle. Subsequently he impleaded the owner, driver and insurer of the mini lorry as respondents 4 to 6 in the OP alleging that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 5th respondent, driver of the lorry. 2. Only respondents 3 and 6, the insurers of the respective vehicles, contested the matter. The 3rd respondent, insurer of the motorcycle, filed a written statement contending that the policy in respect of the motorcycle involved in the accident is an “Act only” M.A.C.A.1280 of 2010 2 policy which does not cover the risk of the pillion rider. The 6th respondent, insurer of the mini lorry involved in the accident, contended that the lorry was not insured with the said company. 3. Pw.1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A7 and X1 were marked on the side of the claimant. On the side of the contesting 3rd respondent, Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the claimant has failed to prove negligence on the part of respondents 2 and 5 and dismissed the OP. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the said finding of the Tribunal. 4. Heard counsel for the appellant. 5. On going through the judgment and award of the Tribunal we felt that the appeal can be disposed of even without issuing notice to the respondents. Therefore no notice was issued to the respondents. 6. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the finding of the Tribunal that the claimant has failed to prove negligence on the part of respondents 2 and 5, the respective drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident can be sustained? 7. Though the claimant has initially attributed negligence on the 2nd respondent, as the 3rd respondent/Insurance company in its written statement contended that the policy in respect of the motorcycle involved in the accident is an “Act only” policy which does M.A.C.A.1280 of 2010 3 not cover the risk of the pillion rider, the claimant alleging negligence against the driver of the mini lorry involved in the accident got impleaded the owner, driver and insurer of the mini lorry as respondents 4 to 6 in the OP. 8. The claimant as PW.1 testified that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 5th respondent, but the criminal case was registered against the 2nd respondent and he was acquitted in the criminal case as seen from Ext.B1, the copy of the judgment in the criminal case. The claimant did not examine any independent witness to prove that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the mini lorry. That being so, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in finding that the claimant has failed to prove negligence either on the part of the 2nd respondent or on the part of the 5th respondent, the drivers of the respective vehicles and holding that the claimant is not entitled to any compensation from the respondents. We confirm the said finding of the Tribunal. That being so, the appeal has to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-