IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1904 of 2008(S)
1. SAITHU MUHAMMED 46 YEARS, S/O.MAITHEEN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUNIL P.R., S/O.RAGHU, PALACKATTU HOUSE
... Respondent
2. BENNY JOSEPH, KOCHUPURACKAL HOUSE,
3. MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
4. GANGA PRAKASHAN, W/O.PRAKASHAN, HOUSE
For Petitioner :SMT.P.P.STELLA
For Respondent :SRI.ELDHO PAUL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :14/01/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J
-----------------------
M.A.C.A.No. 1904 OF 2008
---------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV) No.884/2003.
The claimant alleged that he had sustained injuries in a road
accident while he was riding a motor cycle. According to him when
he reached the place of accident, a jeep came from the opposite
direction hit on the motorcycle resulting in injuries to him. The 2nd
respondent in the claim petition contended that he is not the owner
of the jeep. The 3rd respondent raised a contention that the
petitioner has no licence for riding the motor cycle. It is also
contended that the 3rd respondent is not liable to compensate. It
has specifically contended that the accident took place on account of
the negligence of the claimant. The tribunal on a analysis of the
materials dismissed the case. It is against that decision the
claimant has come up in appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant very strongly
contends before me that the finding of the tribunal is incorrect in
the backdrop of the materials available in the case. A person who
M.A.C.A. 1904/2008
-2-
approaches the court for equity is expected to come forward with
true facts. Those who seek equity must do equity and come to the
court with clean hands. It is true that the provision regarding
compensation in a motor accident case is a beneficial legislation
intend to safeguard a victim who had sustained injuries in a road
accident. But the court shall caution itself and that misplaced
sympathy shall not result in injustice. With this in mind let me
analyse the materials available before me.
3. The accident took place on 30.8.02 and the First
Information Statement given by the claimant was recorded on
2.9.2002. It has been categorically stated in the F.I. Statement
that he was riding as a pillion rider in a motorbike driven by one
Mr. Benny. Subsequently this had been changed and he has
become the driver of the motorbike. Specific sentence were put to
him in cross examination and he had admitted about the same. He
would further add that he had not informed the police that what is
stated in Ext. A2 is wrong. When a specific question was put to him
that having driven the vehicle without licence with an intention to
claim compensation has falsely stated in Ext. A2, his answer was it
may be. The tribunal commended upon this part of the claimant’s
M.A.C.A. 1904/2008
-3-
evidence and held that his evidence cannot be given much weight.
4. The learned counsel very strongly contends before me that
the absence of driving licence for the person who rides the vehicle
cannot be a ground to find negligence on him unless it is proved
that really he has been negligent. There cannot be any quarrel
about that proposition. But it is always to be remembered that
when a person without a licence to drive a vehicle is involved in
accident the place of accident etc. may have to be taken into
consideration. When one is not well versed in the art of riding the
bike, one may not be able to handle a situation when one is
confronted with a difficult situation that may cause an accident. So
the experience as a rider will help such persons to come out of
serious risks in that matter. It is astonishing to see that the
claimant had taken a totally different stand to what is stated in F.I.
Statement given by him. The learned counsel would contend that
there is a road turning towards north at the place of the accident
and so there is no necessity for him to take a ‘U’ turn at the place of
the accident. The tribunal had extracted the damages sustained by
the motorcycle and held that after reading the evidence of PW1, it
leads to the inescapable conclusion that the accident took place
M.A.C.A. 1904/2008
-4-
when the motorcycle took a turn to the right. The tribunal also held
that going east-north in a east-west road is as good as taking a ‘U’
turn. The tribunal had an opportunity to see the demenour of the
witness and it had appreciated the matter. I do not want to find
fault with it unless it is totally erroneous. As stated by me earlier
here is a witness who had changed his whole stand in the case and
it is in that background his evidence has to be analysed. The
tribunal after considering the same had arrived at a decision and
held that it was on account of his negligence that the accident took
place. I do not want to deviate from the said finding and therefore
I decline to interfere with the decision of the tribunal.
Therefore the appeal is dismissed but under the circumstances
without any order as to costs.
M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE
vkm