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