IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA No. 254 of 2001(B)
1. V.MANI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.JANAKI DEVI
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
Dated :18/12/2007
O R D E R
K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J.
-------------------------------------------------
M.F.A.No.254 of 2001
-------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 18th day of December, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.154/1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Thrissur is the appellant. Appellant met with a motor vehicle
accident and sustained injuries. He was a pillion rider in a scooter bearing
registration No.KL-9/C 6270. A collision took place between that scooter and a
stage carriage bus bearing registration No.KL.9/B 2324 driven by the second
respondent. Petitioner filed Original Petition impleading the owner, driver and
insurer of the bus, claiming Rupees one lakh as compensation. The owner and
driver remained exparte. Insurer alone contested the matter. Negligence alleged
against the second respondent driver was denied. It was contended that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the scooter alone. It was
also contended that he was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of
accident. Quantum of damages claimed was disputed. Tribunal found that the
appellant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident. It was found that
normally the appellant would have been entitled to get a compensation of Rupees
one lakh. It was found that it was a case of contributory negligence and the
driver of the scooter was also made liable to pay contribution. Tribunal fixed the
liability to 50:50 and permitted the appellant to recover Rs.50,000/- from the third
MFA No.254/2001 -: 2 :-
respondent. Complaining that the quantum of compensation awarded is very low
this appeal is filed by the petitioner himself.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that FIR was
registered against the second respondent alone and in the final report also he was
made as the accused. At the place of accident the road lies north-south. The width
of the tarred portion of the road is 6.72 metres. Scooter was coming from south to
north and the bus was coming from north to south. The right side of the scooter
was western side of the road. But going by the description given in the mahazer
the place of accident is eastern half of the road. So the Tribunal found that the
rider of the scooter also contributed negligence. Finding of the Tribunal that it
was a case of composite negligence is correct and does not call for any
interference. But the materials on record shows that the bus was driven in
excessive speed and rash or negligent manner. So the Tribunal ought to have fixed
the liability at 65% on the second respondent and 35% on the rider of the scooter.
The appellant is entitled to get 65% of the total compensation already fixed by the
Tribunal, i.e., 15% more what is fixed by the Tribunal. Tribunal found that the
total compensation would have been Rupees one lakh and the appellant/petitioner
is entitled to recover Rs.50,000/-. So the appellant is entitled to get Rs.15,000/-
more with interest. I do not find any reason to interfere with any other findings of
the Tribunal.
In the result, appeal is allowed in part. An award is passed in favour of the
MFA No.254/2001 -: 3 :-
appellant allowing him to recover an amount of Rs.15,000/- more with 6% interest
per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Third respondent
insurer is directed to deposit the amount. On deposit the appellant can withdraw
the entire amount.
K. PADMANABHAN NAIR,
JUDGE.
cks
MFA No.254/2001 -: 4 :-
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.
M.F.A.No.254 of 2001
JUDGMENT
18th December, 2007.