IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 1957 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.846/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT ----------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY IS ASSISTANT MANAGER, MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIM SECTION, AJAY VIHAR, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.S.SIVADHANU PILLAI @ SIVAN, VARIYATHU (H), PULIYANNOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. RAJESH, CHANDRAMBALLA VILLAGE, SETHUMANTHI.P.O, TAMIL NADU, NOW RESIDING AT KATHRIGUPPE BANASHANKARI.P.O, III STAGE, IST PHASE, RING ROAD, OPPOSITE K.E.B, BANGLORE. 3. MUNIYAMMA, W/O.P.SUBRAMANI, VAHINIKULA NO.36, (OLD NO.592), SAJJAN RAO ROAD, V.V.PURAM.P.O, BANGALORE-4. 4. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, KOTTAYAM. 5. CHACKO VATTAMATTATHIL, KALAKETTY.P.O, KONDOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, (LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED DRIVER). 6. P.NALLENDRAKUMAR, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, 12, SECOND CROSS STREET, KAMBAN NAGAR, REDDIAR PALAYAM, PONDICHERRY. ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL FOR R1 SRI.BINU PAUL FOR R1 SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH MACA NO.1965/2005 ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON 11/08/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. Nos.1957 & 1965 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 11th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J. Both these appeals arise out of common award in O.P.(M.V.) Nos.845 and 846 of 1999 on the file of the M.A.C.T., Pala. The appellant in both these cases is the 6th respondent-Insurance Company before the Tribunal. The accident was a collision between a Maruti Car and a Mini Bus. The appellant is the insurer of the Maruti Car. The driver of the Maruti Car as well as one passenger died in the accident and another passenger got serious injuries. The Tribunal found that the driver of the Maruti Car was negligent in causing the accident and hence the appellant-Insurance Company was made liable to pay the compensation. Challenge is against the findings on the aspect of negligence arrived at by the Tribunal. 2. Heard Sri.Lal George, Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant, Standing Counsel for the United India Insurance Company and learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants. 2 3. From the documentary evidence produced such as A15 FIR and A19 Charge Sheet it is brought out that the Police had registered a Criminal case with respect to the accident implicating the driver of the Maruti Car as accused. Even though the scene mahazar relating to the case was not produced, it has come out in evidence that the road in question at the place of accident is having a width of 20 metres. PW2 examined before the Tribunal is a passenger in the Maruti Car. He deposed before the Tribunal that the accident took place while the car was overtaking another vehicle. It has further come out in evidence that it was a head on collision between two vehicles. The contention of the appellant is that the averments in the claim petition as well as oral testimony of PW2 are to the effect that both vehicles were negligent in causing the accident. But on evaluation of other documentary evidence and circumstances of the accident the Tribunal found that the Maruti Van was negligent in causing the accident. On the contra, appellant-Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence to prove any negligence on the part of the driver of the Mini Bus. Even they have not chosen to produce the scene mahazar to establish that the Mini 3 Bus was on the wrong side. The finding of the Tribunal is based on the evidence on record supported by the documents relating to the Criminal case. 4. On an anxious consideration of the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, we do not think any interference is called for with respect to the findings on the aspect of negligence arrived at by the Tribunal. In the result, the appeals deserve no merit and both the appeals are accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms