Prasanna vs The Managing Director on 28 October, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 571 of 2003()


1. PRASANNA, AGED 24 D/O.LAKSHMANAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C.,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :28/10/2008

 O R D E R
                                                                                     C.R.
                         C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                                HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
                    ....................................................................
                               M.A.C.A. No.571 of 2003
                    ....................................................................
                    Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008.

                                           JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

Appeal is filed against the order of the MACT declining to grant

compensation to the appellant for the injury sustained by her in a road accident.

According to the appellant, accident happened when the driver of the KSRTC bus

in which appellant was traveling, applied sudden break without indication to the

vehicles following it and consequently a school bus that was following the KSRTC

bus hit the bus in which the appellant was traveling leading to injury to her.

Appellant rests her claim based on the Police case against the driver of the KSRTC

bus. MACT however noticed that in the claim petition, the driver or owner of the

school bus which hit the KSRTC bus leading to injury to the appellant, were not

made parties. Besides this, MACT did not accept negligence alleged on the part of

the KSRTC bus driver. Before us, counsel for the appellant read over the Police

charge against the KSRTC bus driver wherein it is stated that the accident occurred

on account of the KSRTC bus driver suddenly stopping the bus without giving

signal to the vehicle following it. Even though notice is not served on KSRTC,

we do not think any fresh notice is required because we do not propose to issue

any orders against KSRTC.

2

2. On going through the award and the Police charge against the KSRTC

driver and after hearing counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the

Police case instituted against the KSRTC driver is absolutely untenable. Even on

the facts admitted, it is clear that the accident occurred on account of the school

bus following the KSRTC bus hitting it from behind. Applying break suddenly by

the KSRTC driver is the reason for the accident. Police seems to assume that a

driver applying break suddenly should do so after giving indication or signal to the

vehicle following it. We are unable to accept this proposition because application

of break suddenly is a reflex action and is not a premeditated thing done after

giving indication or after giving signal to the vehicle following. Moreover, a

vehicle following another vehicle should take into account the eventuality of the

vehicle going in it’s front stopping abruptly which may be for large number of

reasons such as a person or animal jumping in front of it or another vehicle

interfering in it’s way or even a sudden obstacle appearing in the road. In all such

eventualities any moving vehicle will stop abruptly and the driver applies break

suddenly without any premeditation and it is more in the nature of a reflex action

than a pre-meditated act to stop the vehicle. No such driver can be blamed for

negligence or rash driving and the allegation of the Police in this case against the

KSRTC driver is thoroughly absurd. In fact, every vehicle following another

should keep a clearance so that in the event of the vehicle going in front stopping

abruptly, the vehicle following should be in a position to stop without hitting the

3

back of the vehicle stopping abruptly in front. In this view of the matter, we do

not accept the stand that the accident is on account of want of care by the driver of

the school bus which hit the KSRTC bus from behind. Consequently, MACT

rightly rejected appellant’s claim for compensation against KSRTC. Even though

counsel for the appellant pointed out the injuries and grievance of the appellant

and sought a remand of the matter to the MACT, we are unable to accept this

contention because an entirely new claim, if at all tenable, has to be raised by the

appellant against the driver, owner and insurer of the school bus and cannot be

done by impleading or amending the petition which was squarely directed against

the KSRTC. We, therefore, leave it open to the appellant to prefer any claim

petition against driver, owner and insurer of the school bus. Appeal is dismissed

with the above observation. There will be direction to the MACT to release the

original documents to the appellant within two weeks from date of production of

this judgment along with an undertaking by the appellant that this judgment is

accepted and no further appeal will be filed against the same.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

HARUN-UL-RASHID
Judge
pms