AMALA SAJEEV Vs. ZEEZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased in an accident. The deceased, husband of the 1st appellant, was driving a mini lorry in pursuance of his employment when it collided with a tipper lorry parked on the road without parking lights. The accident occurred at 3.45 a.m. on 12.03.2011. The Tribunal fixed 25% negligence and awarded lesser compensation under the various heads, are the arguments raised in appeal.

(2.) Admittedly the vehicle driven by the deceased hit a parked lorry. The Tribunal found, on the basis of the vehicle inspection report of the mini lorry which was driven by the deceased (A5), that serious damage was caused to the tipper lorry thus making it clear that it was coming in high speed. The measurements of the road as seen from the scene mahazar also was relied on to find that there was enough space for the mini lorry to pass without hitting the tipper lorry. It was on these grounds that 25% negligence was found.

(3.) This Court is of the opinion that there is absolutely no evidence led by the respondents to fix negligence on the deceased lorry driver. The facts as noticed by the Tribunal does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the deceased lorry driver especially since the accident occurred at 3.45.a.m. when the visibility is very low. The vehicle which was parked also did not have parking lights and admittedly it was parked on the drive-way of the road. The fact that there was enough space to avoid the lorry, would not be relevant at all, when there is low visibility. This Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has merely proceeded on assumptions and conjectures, not substantiated by evidence. The negligence cast on the deceased would stand deleted.