IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA No. 252 of 2003()
1. MATHEW, S/O.JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BASHEER,
... Respondent
2. K.A.AVIRACHAN,
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
Dated :11/10/2007
O R D E R
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.
--------------------------
M.F.A. NO. 252 OF 2003
---------------------
Dated this the 11thday of October, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner in O.P.(MV) 455/98 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, is the appellant. This
appeal is filed by the petitioner challenging the award passed by the
Tribunal dismissing the original petition filed by him. Petitioner
sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 29.8.96. He filed
the original petition claiming compensation. It was alleged that while
the petitioner was walking along the side of Vannappuram-
Thodupuzha road, a mini lorry bearing Reg.No.KL6-8373 driven by
the 1st respondent came in a rash or negligent manner and hit
against his body and the appellant sustained injuries. The 2nd
respondent was the owner of the vehicle and the 3rd respondent, the
insurer. The appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.75,000/-. The
insurer contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence
of the appellant himself. The negligence alleged against the driver
was denied. The quantum of compensation claimed was also
disputed. The existence of a valid policy was admitted. The Tribunal
found that the appellant was entitled to get a compensation of
MFA 252/03 Page numbers
Rs.12,045. But the claim was dismissed on the ground that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant himself.
Challenging that award this appeal is filed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that finding of
the Tribunal that the appellant was solely responsible for the accident
is unsustainable. It is argued that the quantum of compensation
fixed was also very low.
3. The evidence on record shows that the appellant was
walking along the road. The scene mahazar shows that the road is
having a width of 3.33. metres. The Tribunal found that the place of
occurrence is 1.09 metres east of the western end of the tarred
portion of the road and came to the conclusion that the accident
occurred while the appellant was crossing the road. The mere fact
that the accident occurred while the victim was crossing road alone is
not a ground to hold that he alone is responsible for the accident.
There is nothing on record to show that the driver of the vehicle was
not able to see a pedestrian crossing the road or he made any
attempt to slow down the vehicle or stop the same. Therefore the
dismissal of the original petition holding that the accident occurred
due to the negligence of the appellant is unsustainable.
MFA 252/03 Page numbers
4. I hold that the accident occurred due to the negligence of
the appellant as well as the driver of the lorry and fix the
responsibility at 75:25. I do not find any reason to interfere with the
quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. So the appellant is
entitled to get 75% of that amount, which will come to Rs.9,033.80,
which is rounded to Rs. 9,035/- and that amount will carry interest at
the rate of 5%. The insurer is directed to deposit that amount in
accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. An award is
passed in favour of the appellant allowing him to recover an amount
of Rs.9,035/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till the date of
realisation. The 3rd respondent is directed to deposit the same. On
deposit the appellant can withdraw the amount.
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE
vps
MFA 252/03 Page numbers
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.
—————————————
MFA NO.252/03
———————
JUDGMENT
11th day of October, 2007
MFA 252/03 Page numbers