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 THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 MACA.No. 2359 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.273/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- O.V.GEORGE ROY ,S/O. KUTTAPPAN AGED 40 YEARS, OTTATHENGIL HOUSE NELLIMALA P.O. THRIKKAIPETTA VYTHIRI TALUK (DRIVER CUM OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO.KL-12/A-494)WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR SMT.ANITHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1,2&4: -------------------------- 1. T.V.MUHAMMED SHERIFF,AGED 38 YEARS S/O. MOIDEEN KOYA HAJI,THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE ANNASSERI P.O.THALAKULATHOOR KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. KARIYAPPA, AGED 42 YEARS S/O. CHENNAIGA, DRIVER,K.S.R.T.C.GUNDELPETTA DEPOT KARNATAKA (DRIVER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BUS NO.K.A.09/CAF-1516) D.L.NOT KNOWN. 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BANGALORE, KARNATAKA. 4. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY KALPETTA, POLICY NO. 101601/31/10/3616/97. ADV. SRI.V.G.SALEESH FOR R2 SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE FOR R3 SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FOR R3 SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2009,ALONG WITH MACA NO.187 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. Nos.2359/2007 & 187/2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Connected appeals are one filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and the other by a claimant pertaining to the same accident. The accident is a collision between a motorbike driven by the appellant in MACA No.2359/2007 wherein the first respondent was his pillion rider. In the accident, the rider sustained relatively minor injuries, whereas the pillion rider suffered a fracture. Both the rider and the pillion rider filed separate claim petitions and both claim petitions were heard and disposed of separately. Even though parties were same and the counsel appearing were also same, MACT which heard the subsequent case was not informed about the previous award passed by another Tribunal. Obviously parties tried to mislead the court and for this reason alone the second award passed is liable to be set aside. In the first award passed in favour of the rider of the bike, we find that the court has assumed negligence on the part of the driver 2 of the bus because Police case is against him. Obviously the Corporation did not take any effort to prove the contrary. In the first place, the driver remained exparte and no serious effort is seen made to prove negligence on the part of the rider of the bike, even though in the subsequent award specific plea of the Corporation and the Insurance Company was that inspite of care taken by the bus driver, the motorbike dashed against the bus causing the accident. We are of the view that the second award is passed in favour of the pillion rider without the court ever noticing about the criminal case against the driver of the bus. It is seen that invariably in all accidents involving two vehicles, the driver of the heavier vehicle get charge-sheeted. Therefore, even if the criminal case is against the driver of the bus, it is the duty of the MACT to critically examine the criminal case, it's outcome and allow parties to adduce evidence and if the rider of the bike is found negligent, MACT is free to come to a conclusion contrary to the Police case or the finding of the criminal court. We are also constrained to observe that in this case the compensation awarded in favour of the registered owner of the bike who was it's rider, on the 3 face of it, is exorbitant because injuries are only aberrations, whereas the injury sustained by the pillion rider is a fracture. We, therefore set aside both the awards and remand the cases back to the Tribunal for fresh trial together. If after fresh adjudication the MACT finds that original awards have been satisfied, excess if any collected should be ordered to be recovered from the beneficiaries without any delay. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms