KAMBRA ABDUL MAJEED Vs. K.T.PRAMOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M .A.C.A. No.1118/2011 was fled by the claimant in O.P.(M.V.)No.70/2008 and M.A.C.A. No.1241/2011 was filed by the claimant in O.P.(M.V.)No.68/2008 both on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur. The appellants in both the cases filed application for compensation for the injuries and consequential disabilities suffered by them in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the 1st respondent owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent.

(2.) AFTER considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident had not occurred as alleged by the appellants but in a different manner while they were travelling in the lorry with the marbles and when the lorry driver abruptly applied brake, they jammed in between the marbles carried in the lorry and sustained injuries and thereby they have failed to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and they are not entitled to get compensation and dismissed the applications. Dissatisfied with the dismissal of the claim petitions, the appellants have preferred the above appeals before this court.

(3.) THE counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal had relied on the statements in the case diary maintained by the police, which was proved through RW1 to come to the conclusion that the accident had not occurred as alleged by the appellants. Further the Tribunal also disbelieved the evidence of PW2, an independent witness, who was examined to prove the incident. Even assuming that the case of the appellants has not been proved as such, the Tribunal ought not have dismissed the applications as negligence is per se on the part of the driver of the lorry on account of whose negligence the appellants had to sustain injury. So according to the learned counsel, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the applications as such. The learned counsel also argued that if for any reason, this court found that further evidence is required to prove the case of the appellants, he prays for an opportunity to adduce further evidence for that purpose and prays for a remand.