IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1653 of 2009()
1. P.J.RAPHEAL,AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SANDEEP.M.S,AGED 26 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,BY ITS
3. M.K.SUNIL,AGED 38 YEARS,
4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,BY
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
For Respondent :SRI.S.MAMMU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :23/02/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 1653 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV)3149/98.
He was the rider of the bike which got involved in an
accident. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the
appeal are as follows.
2. The motorcycle ridden by the appellant was
proceeding from north to south. When it reached the place
of accident it appears that a scooter which was coming from
a pocket road was attempting to cross the road and both of
them had collided resulting in injuries to the persons
travelling in the vehicle. The Police after due investigation
found that both the riders are not negligent. The police was
of the opinion that one lorry was coming in a hectic speed
overtaking another lorry and in that process these vehicles
got involved in the accident. I feel such an approach may be
erroneous for the following reasons.
M.A.C.A. 1653 OF 2009
-:2:-
3. A scooter was coming from a pocket road to join a
main road. It is a settled position that when you want to join
a main road it is always stated ‘halt and proceed’. It means
the persons who is coming from a side road is expected to
stop the vehicle and see that there is road clearance from
two sides so as to join the road or to cross the road.
Therefore there is a serious responsibility on the rider of the
vehicle coming from the pocket road to the main road. It is
seen that the present claimant was only proceeding from
north to south and his correct side was eastern side. A
reading of the award would reveal that the place of accident
is only 55 cm. west of the eastern tarred end or in other
words the accident had taken place only on the eastern
extremity of the road. So one could not say that the
motorcyclist was totally negligent. But at the same time it is
clear that the scooterist had also entered the main road.
That is why the place of accident is on the main road. The
road is having a straight vision in the area and it is a national
high way having a width of 8.5 mtr. It is also the
M.A.C.A. 1653 OF 2009
-:3:-
responsibility of the local people who are conversant with the
place to slow down the vehicle when a pocket road is joining
the high way for the reason that they are aware of the
existence of such pocket roads. If he had also come at a
reasonable speed and bestowed better care he could have
also averted the accident. But the negligence is more on the
person coming from the pocket road and had caused the
accident. Therefore I modify the percentage of negligence by
fixing 70% on the scooterist and 30% on the motorcyclist.
The compensation awarded is Rs.12,420/- of which the
claimant will be entitled to get 70% which means he will be
entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,694/- which I round
Rs.8,700/-
In the result a revised award is passed in favour of the
claimant and he is awarded a compensation of Rs.8,700/-
with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till
realisation and the 2nd respondent, insurance company is
directed to deposit the same within a period of sixty days
from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. If any
M.A.C.A. 1653 OF 2009
-:4:-
amount is already in deposit only the balance need to be
deposited. If Court fee is yet to be paid before the Court
below let that also be paid.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-