IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 36 of 2005() --------------------- OPMV.1155/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- JOSEPH. M.K., S/O. KURIAKOSE, MANIVELIL HOUSE, MUPLIYAM P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. K.A. JOSEPH, KUNNEL HOUSE, INCHAKUNDU P.O., KILAZHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSUSRANCE CO.LTD., PERINCHERRY BUILDINGS, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.JOY GEORGE FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.36 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company. Main challenge is against the finding of the MACT that accident was caused on account of the negligence of the appellant himself who was the pillion rider. According to counsel for the appellant, the appellant had not got out of the moving two wheeler prior to the accident as assumed by the MACT. We do not find any ground to interfere with the award of the MACT because appellant admitted that the rider of the motorbike was steadily riding at a high speed and in a negligent manner. He was not a friend of the appellant but was only an acquaintance. Since the rider was steadily driving at a high speed and in a negligent manner, appellant could have easily avoided accident to him by asking the rider to stop for the appellant to get out of the two wheeler. This is exactly what the MACT said when it held that the appellant invited trouble for him by continuing his ride in the rear seat of the two wheeler which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the rider. Since the MACT has found 2 negligence on the appellant's side from appellant's own statement, we do not find any ground to interfere with the award fixing liability of the Insurance Company at 50% of the compensation awarded. Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the company's liability for compensation is also not proved and the policy itself was not seen by the MACT. However, since no appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned award, we do not entertain this argument. The appeal is consequently dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms