IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 528 of 2003()
1. USHA, W/O.LATE MANMADHAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
2. SYAMILI. D/O.LATE MANMADHAN NAIR,
3. SIVAPRASAD, S/O.LATE MANMADHAN NAIR,
Vs
1. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.UNNIPILLAI(SET EX-
... Respondent
2. M.JINADEVAN, S/O.MADHAVAN(SINCE
3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.J.JOY
For Respondent :SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :20/08/2008
O R D E R
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.A.C.A. No. 528 OF 2003
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 20th day of august 2008
JUDGMENT
RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J
The appeal is filed against the award of MACT, granting
compensation to the appellants for the death of the first appellant’s
husband, in a motor accident. The accident occurred as a result of a
collision between the motor vehicle driven by the first appellant’s
husband and the jeep driven by the first respondent. However, 50%
of the compensation awarded is reduced on account of the
negligence of the deceased who was driving the bike. We notice that
this finding is purely based on the evidence of PW2, who is none
other than the witness of the appellant, who has stated that the jeep
hit on the left side of the motor bike. This is the sole basis on which
MACT held that accident was partly on account of contributory
negligence by the deceased. However, MACT has not considered
remaining evidence furnished by PW2. He has stated that jeep was
driven in a high speed and negligent manner. Moreover, the scene
mahazar and final report furnished by the police are not even
considered by the MACT. Another thing noted by the MACT is that
M.A.C.A.No.528/2003
-2-
the deceased had not exhibited `L’ in the vehicle even though he had
only a learner’s licence. We do not think the MACT has considered
the entire evidence in the matter, but has solely relied on a
piecemeal statement from one of the witnesses to find contributory
negligence of the deceased.
2. So far as the challenge against the amount of
compensation is concerned, we are unable to uphold the assumption
of MACT that the wife of the deceased could have carried on the
newspaper agency that the deceased was running. Further finding
that the deceased would not have been engaged in agricultural
operations as he was engaged in other business also is not tenable.
For the reasons stated above, the award passed by the MACT
is set aside with a direction to the MACT to consider the entire
evidence in the matter, hear both sides and decide the matter on all
issues afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. Appellant shall produce a copy of the
judgment before the MACT for compliance.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE
V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE
ttb