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 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 MACA.No. 1908 of 2005 -------------------------------------- OPMV.677/1977 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT / RESPONDENT NO.I: ------------------------------------------------------ THE MANAGER, MAIL MOTOR SERVICE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI RESPONDENTS / CLAIMANT & 2ND RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.C. JOSEPH AJITH, S/O. M.M. CHANDY, MANAYIL HOUSE, VADUTHALA P.O., COCHIN-23. 2. BOBEN K.THOMAS, KACHILAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALARKODE, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 35739 OF 2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.1908 OF 2005 & W.P.(C)No.35739 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of January 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. These two cases are being disposed of through this common judgment, since both of them arise from a common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on two claim petitions filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Appellant and petitioner in the writ petition are the same. 2. Appellant is stated to be the Manager of Mail Motor Service, Ernakulam engaged by the Postal Department to carry postal articles to various destinations. On March 16, 1996 a scooter that was being ridden by the injured claimant admittedly hit behind the van belonging to the appellant. But it was contended by the rider of the scooter (respondent No.1 herein) that his vehicle happened to hit behind the van, since the driver of the van stopped it abruptly and without any signal. In other words, the rider alleged that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the van by its driver. 3. The Tribunal accepted the above contention and awarded a sum of Rs.59,882/- to the claimant (respondent No.1 herein), towards compensation and directed the appellant to pay the same with 9% interest and cost. The Tribunal passed another award directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.7370/- towards the damage caused to the two wheeler. This award is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. As has been noticed already, it is the admitted position that the two wheeler hit behind the van. But according to the driver of the van, there was no M.A.C.A.No.1908 OF 2005 & W.P.(C)No.35739 OF 2005 :: 2 :: rashness or negligence on his part. His specific case was that an autorikshaw which was proceeding ahead of his vehicle had suddenly turned towards right without any signal and he had to stop his vehicle abruptly in order to avoid collision with the autorikshaw. The two wheeler was in fact coming from behind in a rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed. The accident had occurred only because of the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the two wheeler. 5. It is brought to our notice that the pillion rider had filed O.P.(MV)No.678/97 against the appellant and his driver. In the said claim petition, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam held that the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the scooter and that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the van. The Tribunal while awarding compensation to the pillion rider directed the rider and insurer of the two wheeler to pay the same. A copy of the said award passed by the Tribunal has been produced and marked as Ext.P3 in the Writ Petition. It is the admitted position that the said award has become final since neither the rider nor the insurance company had challenged it so far before the appellate court. 6. However, when the two claim petitions filed by the rider came up before the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, the finding as regards rashness and negligence has turned out to be totally contrary to what had been held by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the claim petition arising out of the same accident. As has been noticed already, in the latter case the Tribunal found that the accident had occurred because of the rashness and negligence of the van driver. This finding has become final. M.A.C.A.No.1908 OF 2005 & W.P.(C)No.35739 OF 2005 :: 3 :: 7. Nevertheless, we have carefully perused the impugned award in this appeal. The case of the rider was that his vehicle happened to hit behind the van when it was stopped suddenly by its driver. Every vehicle has to keep a safe distance while it is being driven behind another which is going ahead of it. On a perusal of the two awards referred to above, we are of the view that the finding entered by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal appears to be correct. More importantly, the rider of the two wheeler had never challenged the finding entered against him in the claim petition filed in connection with the same accident. For that reason also, the finding in Ext.P3 has to be accepted. Necessarily, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. We do so. 8. Learned counsel for the claimant has invited our attention to a decision of this court in Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. v. M.A.C.T. & Ors. [1999 (2) KLJ 500]. In this judgment, a learned Single Judge of this court has held that a writ petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained, if the amount awarded by the Tribunal is less than 10,000/-. But in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we have no hesitation to hold that Ext.P4 award is liable to be quashed. We do so. The appeal and the writ petition are allowed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes