P.B.SHAJI Vs. AZEEZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.474 of 2002 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. He suffered injuries in an accident as a result of a collision between the scooter in which the appellant was travelling as a pillion rider and a lorry which was parked on the side of the National Highway. The appellant filed the O.P. claiming compensation for the injuries and disabilities suffered by him allegedly caused by the negligence of the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the driver of the scooter in which the appellant was travelling as a pillion rider and fixed liability to pay compensation to the appellant on the owner and driver of the scooter. Thereafter the Tribunal assessed compensation due to the appellant as Rs.1,20,000/- with interest thereon. The appellant is challenging the findings of the Tribunal on the question of negligence as well as quantum of compensation.

(2.) THE contention of the appellant is that, the accident occurred because of the negligence of the lorry driver in parking the vehicle by the side of the National Highway unauthorisedly. Therefore, if not fully, at least partly, the lorry driver is responsible for the accident by his negligence. Hence the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred wholly on account of the negligence of the driver of the scooter is unsustainable is his contention. The appellant further contends that the Tribunal went wrong in limiting the percentage of loss of earning capacity to 20%, although the doctor certified 24% disability.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the accident occurred while the scooter, in which the appellant was travelling as a pillion rider, hit on a stationery lorry parked by the side of national highway from behind. Even assuming that the lorry was wrongly parked which itself has not been proved, that cannot be held to be the cause of the accident, when clearly the scooter in which the appellant was travelling hit the stationary lorry from behind. In such circumstances, we are unable to find fault with the reasoning given by the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that it was the negligence of the driver of the scooter in which the appellant was travelling which caused the accident.