K.M.JOY Vs. SAVITHRI GOPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st respondent in O.P.(M.V).No.1455/2006 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, is the appellant herein. The O.P. was filed by respondents 1 to 5 herein under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of their brother, Ramesh, on account of the negligent driving of a motor cycle, which was allegedly driven by the appellant herein, which was owned by the 6th respondent. Before the Tribunal, the 6th respondent herein gave evidence to the effect that he was driving the motor cycle at the time of the accident. But the Police had charge-sheeted the appellant herein for the negligent driving before the criminal court. Disbelieving the evidence of the 6th respondent, the Tribunal entered a finding that the appellant was driving the vehicle and the 6th respondent was the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, both of them were made jointly and severally liable for payment of the compensation of Rs. 1,36,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% and costs of Rs.3600/- payable to the respondents 1 to 5 herein.

(2.) THE appellant challenges the award on three grounds. The first is that when the 6th respondent himself, as RW1, admitted that he was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, the Tribunal could not have made the appellant also liable along with the 6th respondent for the compensation payable. The second is that respondents 1 to 5 are married elder sisters of the deceased and, therefore, they are not dependants of the deceased, eligible to claim compensation for the death of their brother under the Motor Vehicles Act. The third contention is that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident and, therefore, it must be concluded that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the deceased himself or atleast that he also contributed to the accident by his negligence.

(3.) IN respect of the first contention is concerned, the criminal court records were before the Tribunal. All those records show that it was the appellant, who was charge sheeted for the offence of negligent driving of the motor cycle. That being so, the evidence of the 6th respondent as RW1 can only be treated as an interested version only to help the appellant herein to escape liability. There is nothing wrong in the Tribunal believing the criminal court records to find that the appellant was actually driving the vehicle.