K.V.Unni vs Vijayan P
2023 Latest Caselaw 2935 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1944
                         MACA NO. 1427 OF 2014
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOPMV 70/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
                                TRIBUNAL PALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             K.V.UNNI, S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, AGED 34 YEARS,
             KOOROPADA P.O, PAMPADY.

             SRI.S.PRASANTH
             SRI.B.PRASANTH
             SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1        VIJAYAN P., S/O.PADMAKARAN, THUNDATHIL,
             NEAR SCHOOL JUNCTION, PULLIKKANAMKARA,
             VILLAGE VAGAMON 685 503.

    2        DAMODARAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, PUNNATHANATHU HOUSE,
             POONJAR P.O. - 686 581.

    3        THE MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD,
             BRANCH OFFICE, MOOVATTUPUZHA 686 661.


             SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH


     THIS    MOTOR   ACCIDENT    CLAIMS      APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 MACA NO. 1427 OF 2014
                                2


                            JUDGMENT

The appellant has filed this appeal against the final order

of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala (the 'Tribunal' for

short) in OP(MV)No.70/2009, which was filed by him, seeking

compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road

accident on 06.01.2006

2. The appellant says that while he was riding his

motorcycle, the offending autorickshaw, insured by the 3 rd

respondent - Insurance Company, hit him, thus causing serious

injuries. He alleges that he had to endure treatment for a long

period, and is certified to be suffering from 24% permanent

disability; but that, without adverting to these vital facts, the

learned Tribunal has dismissed the Original Petition, holding

that he was responsible for the accident and not the offending

autorickshaw. He thus prays that this appeal be allowed.

3. In response to the afore submissions of Sri.S.Prasanth

- learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Lal K.Joseph - learned

Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, submitted that

Ext.B2 - Final Report settled by the Police clearly establishes

that the accident occurred solely on account of the negligent,

rash and reckless driving of the appellant and not on account MACA NO. 1427 OF 2014

of any contribution from the 1 st respondent - who was the

driver of the autorickshaw. He submitted that since the

appellant did not assail the charge sheet, either by filing a

protest complaint or through such other legally sanctioned

methods, the learned Tribunal could have only gone by the

same because, it is now well established that it is the most

reliable evidence with respect to the cause of the accident.

This is more so because, when PW1 - who is the mother of the

claimant, was examined, she was unable to speak about the

cause of the accident; and in fact, Ext.B4 - which is the copy of

the statement of PW2 under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., testifies

that the bike ridden by the claimant hit against the divider, thus

causing his fall and consequential injuries.

4. The learned Tribunal, on an assessment of the oral

evidence of PWs.1 to 5, concluded that the accident occurred on

account of the negligence of the appellant himself because

Exts.B3 to B6 documents show that the accident occurred when

the motorbike skid in the sand and then hit the autorickshaw;

and that the appellant was injured on account of his hit against

the divider itself. Though the appellant tries to assail the

findings of the learned Tribunal asserting that Ext.B1 scene

mahazar does not mention any such divider on the road, its MACA NO. 1427 OF 2014

contents are totally to the contrary and it specifically mentions

the existence of one.

5. In such circumstances, this Court is left without any

other option but to dismiss this appeal because the evidence on

record and the deposition of witnesses, clearly speak in unison

that the accident occurred solely on account of the rash and

negligent driving of the appellant.

This appeal is consequently dismissed, but without any

order as to costs.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE anm/stu