RAJU Vs. DEEPAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the claimant in OP(MV) No. 381 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, a petition filed under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000.00 as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

(2.) The case of the appellant/claimant is that on 28/8/2011 at 7.50 pm, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-08/AJ-9516 through the Vilakkumkal- Vadakke Karamuck public road, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-08/AL-1117 ridden by the second respondent and owned by the first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the appellant causing him grievous injuries. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, however, disputing the compensation claimed as excessive and exorbitant. It was contended that the second respondent was not having a valid driving licence and the police has already charge sheeted the second respondent for the offences under Ss. 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3(1) r/w Sec. 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, "the MV Act"). It was further contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant.

(3.) Before the tribunal, the evidence consisted of oral testimony of PW1, and documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A11 on the side of the appellant/claimant. Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the respondent insurer. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the appellant is entitled to get Rs.1,46,375.00 as compensation under different heads. However, finding that the appellant was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and the scene of occurrence is in the middle of the road as per Ext.A10 scene mahazar, attributing contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, the tribunal directed that only 50% of the amount awarded, Rs.73,188.00, need be remitted by the respondent insurer. The respondent insurer was permitted to recover the amount so paid to the appellant from respondents 1 and 2 since there was violation of policy condition on account of the fact that the second respondent, who was the rider of the offending vehicle, was not having a valid driving licence. Challenging the finding of the tribunal, attributing contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and reducing 50% of the amount awarded, the appellant has come up in appeal.