The High Court of Kerala appellate bench sitting as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim for compensation. The bench held that the appellant failed to provide credible evidence proving that his injuries were caused by the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent.
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 P.D.RAJAN
FRIDAY ,THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940
MACA.NO. 1303 OF 2006
AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1355/1999 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR DATED 07-05-2005
APPELLANT/PETITIONER :
SUDHEER, S/O RAMAN NAIR, POOKKATTIL HOUSE, EDAKUNNY DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.M.GEORGE THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
1 P.B.SAJEEV, PONNATH HOUSE, RAPAL, PUDUKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., PERINCHERRY BUILDING, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA.NO. 1303 OF 2006
2
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P. (M.V.) No.1355 of 1999 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur by the injured. Appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident, while travelling as a pillion rider and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant himself was responsible for the accident. Being aggrieved by that, he preferred this appeal.
MACA.NO. 1303 OF 2006 3
marked Exts.A1 to A5. Respondents evidence consist of documentary evidence of Exts.B1 to B3.
4
MACA.NO. 1303 OF 2006
MACA.NO. 1303 OF 2006 5
and it is nothing more than carelessness. Such carelessness may exist in any degree and varies directly with the risk to which other persons are exposed by the act in question. In this situation, the main question is what standard of care is required by law where duty to take care exists? The law does not demand the highest degree of care of which human nature is capable. The law demands a reasonable care in view of the extent and possibility of the risk. Therefore, the standard of care established by the law is that of a reasonable man in identical circumstance. What amounts to reasonable care is a question of fact depending on the circumstance of each case. While in determining the standard of care, the magnitude of the risk to which other persons are exposed and the importance of the object to be attained by the dangerous form of activity are relevant.
MACA.NO. 1303 OF 2006 6
evidence shows that he was travelling in an autorickshaw, at that time he saw two persons travelling in a motorcycle. After the accident, the injured was removed to Kuzhikkattussery Mission Hospital. PW2 deposed that after overtaking the autorickshaw, the motorcycle hit against the telephone post. Immediately the rider and pillion rider were removed to hospital, but the wound certificate of the rider was not produced before the court. The evidence of PW3 shows that both persons were travelling in a motorcycle and it hit against the telephone post which is near to his shop. At that time, an autorickshaw came there and the local people gathered there removed them to the hospital. In cross examination, he admitted that the injured was brought in his shop, at that time the autorickshaw came there. PW1 has no case that the accident happened while overtaking an auto rickshaw. If that be the position, PW1, PW2 and PW3 are stating inconsistent versions about the accident. In this context, the evidence of RW2, who is the investigating officer in the above case is to be analysed. His evidence shows that there was only one person travelling in the motorcycle. RW3 deposed that after
MACA.NO. 1303 OF 2006
7
conducting investigation, he prepared Ext.B2 refer report. No reasons are stated to disbelieve the evidence of RW2 and RW3. The Sub Inspector of Police, Mala referred the case. If that be the position, I am of the view that the appellant failed to prove that he sustained injuries in a motor accident and the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. In the circumstance, the finding of the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition is upheld. There is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/- P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE
/True Copy/ P.A. To Judge
NS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant successfully proved that he sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle owner.
Whether the version of witnesses regarding the accident was consistent and adequate to establish liability.
Sudheer, S/O Raman Nair
P.B. Sajeep
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
P.D. Rajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
