The appellant challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's finding of his negligence. The court found the appellant's admission of the pillion rider's negligent driving validated the Tribunal's order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award is 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 C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930
MACA.No. 36 of 2005()
--------------------OPMV.1155/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
JOSEPH. M.K., S/O. KURIAKOSE, MANIVELIL HOUSE, MUPLIYAM P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:
ADV. SRI.JOY GEORGE FOR R2
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
M.A.C.A. No.36 of 2005
.................................................................... Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Heard counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company. Main challenge is against the finding of the MACT that accident was caused on account of the negligence of the appellant himself who was the pillion rider. According to counsel for the appellant, the appellant had not got out of the moving two wheeler prior to the accident as assumed by the MACT. We do not find any ground to interfere with the award of the MACT because appellant admitted that the rider of the motorbike was steadily riding at a high speed and in a negligent manner. He was not a friend of the appellant but was only an acquaintance. Since the rider was steadily driving at a high speed and in a negligent manner, appellant could have easily avoided accident to him by asking the rider to stop for the appellant to get out of the two wheeler. This is exactly what the MACT said when it held that the appellant invited trouble for him by continuing his ride in the rear seat of the two wheeler which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the rider. Since the MACT has found
2
negligence on the appellant's side from appellant's own statement, we do not find any ground to interfere with the award fixing liability of the Insurance Company at 50% of the compensation awarded. Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the company's liability for compensation is also not proved and the policy itself was not seen by the MACT. However, since no appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned award, we do not entertain this argument. The appeal is consequently dismissed.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge
V.K.MOHANAN Judge
pms
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the MACT's finding that the appellant was negligent as a pillion rider.
Whether the liability of the Insurance Company for compensation is binding in the absence of an appeal by the insurer.
Joseph. M.K.
K.A. Joseph
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
C.N. Ramachandran Nair
V.K. Mohanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
