Motor Accident Claims Tribunal appeal. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's award of 50% compensation due to partial negligence of the deceased and mutual liability.
The appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER
THURSDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2007 / 12TH ASWINA 1929
MACA.No. 103 of 2003
OPMV.19/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1,3 & 4:
BY ADV. SRI.T.K.CHINNAN
RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 & PETITIONERS 5 TO 9 IN O.P.
MACA.No. 103 of 2003
:: 2 ::
BY ADV. SRI.RUPESH V.R. - R6 to R10 SRI.P.JAYASANKAR - R3
SRI.KKM.SHERIF - R5
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & A.K.BASHEER, JJ.
M.A.C.A.No.103 OF 2003
JUDGMENT
Radhakrishnan, J
The appellants are the wife and children of deceased Krishnamoorthy who died in a motor accident occurred on 21.5.94. At the time of the incident, Krishnamoorthy was travelling in his lorry bearing No.TCI 5758. Another lorry bearing No.TAL 6899 came from the opposite direction dashed against the other. Tribunal found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the drivers of both the lorries. The compensation amount was fixed as Rs.4,32,000/- as compensation under all heads. Further, it is ordered that the claimants are entitled to get only 50% of that amount from respondents 1 to 3 i.e., Rs.2,16,250/- because of the conclusion that the deceased was also negligent. Ext.A2 is the copy of the scene mahazar prepared by the police during investigation. Exts.A3(a) and A3(b) are the reports of the Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicles after
M.A.C.A.No.103 OF 2003
:: 2 ::
the incident. The Motor Vehicle Inspector has reported that there was no mechaical defect to both the vehicles. In Ext.B1 and B2, it is specifically stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both lorries by its drivers. As per Exts.B1 and B2, the accident occurred on the middle of the tar road. There is no contra-evidence to disbelieve the contents of Exts.A1, B1 and B2.
In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
jes
N. Jayalakshmi
Lakshmi Priya
Leha Nandini
K.S. Palaniswamy
P. Sivalingam
National Insurance Company Ltd.
KSRadhakrishnan
AKBasheer
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
