ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. K.P. HAMZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals arise out of proceedings in M.A.C. No. 43 of 1984 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. M.F.A. Nos. 33 of 1986 and 620 of 1985 are appeals against the interim orders passed by the Tribunal. These appeals are not now relevant except to a very limited extent in M.F.A. No. 620/85, which we will advert separately. We say that these appeals are not very significant now, since the appeals were filed against the interim awards passed by the Tribunal which have now emerged into the final award against which the Insurance Company has filed M.F.A. No. 269/ 87. Now, we turn to consider M.F.A. No. 269/87.

(2.) AS we said earlier, the Insurance Company is the appellant. The vehicles involved in this case are a motor cycle and an autorickshaw. Claimant in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is the rider of the motor cycle. The accident took place when the autorickshaw took a sudden turn without giving proper signal. The motor cycle, which was following the autorickshaw, hit on the back side of the autorickshaw which resulted in the accident in which the rider of the motor cycle sustained injuries.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the accident took place when the atitorickshaw took a turn. The case of the claimant is that no proper signal was given and the autorickshaw took a turn suddenly and that caused the accident. It has to be noted that the motor cycle hit on the back side of the autorickshaw, the impact of which resulted in pushing of the autorickshaw 30 mts. forward. Further, it is stated that the motor cycle was on the wrong side. But the Tribunal found that the driver of the autorickshaw was also negligent like the rider of the motor cycle.