SREEKANTH BHAT Vs. SAJAN P.VASUDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in O.P.(M.V).No. 433/2010 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, is the appellant herein. He filed the O.P. seeking compensation for the injuries and consequent disability suffered by him in an accident allegedly caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle driven by the 3rd respondent, owned and possessed by respondents 1 and 2 and insured with the 4th respondent. After considering the evidence available, the Tribunal came to the finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the petitioner himself and therefore he is not entitled to compensation as prayed for, although the Tribunal has assessed a total compensation of Rs. 18,500/-. The appellant is challenging the said judgment in this appeal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellant, the Tribunal has misread the evidence. The appellant's vehicle had a valid insurance policy. The other vehicle involved in the accident did not have a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. Therefore, respondents 1 to 3 influenced the Police and crime was registered against the appellant alone. Although the appellant had filed a complaint against the driver of the other vehicle, the Police did not register a crime to investigate the complaint. Although the appellant was convicted by the criminal court, in appeal, the Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal went wrong in finding negligence on the part of the appellant, is the contention raised.

(3.) IN answer, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that insofar as the appellant had a valid policy in respect of his vehicle, he did not contest the matter before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, especially when the insurance company had filed an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in which, the insurance company was permitted to contest the matter on all grounds available to the appellant also. As such, the claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, cannot be held against the appellant is the contention raised.