NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. REJI P. RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSAILING the common award in O.P. (M.V.) Nos. 1362 of 2003 and 1815 of 2003 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, the claimants have filed M.A.C.A. Nos. 1599 of 2010 and 1447/2010 and the Insurance Company has filed M.A.C.A. Nos. 3114/2009 and 471/2010 respectively. The claimants have come in appeal for enhancement of compensation, while the Insurance Company assails the awards as excessive and unjustified.

(2.) WE heard Sri. A.N. Santhosh for the claimants and the Sri. Rajan P. Kaliyath for the Insurance Company. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the accident occurred on account of the contributory negligence on the part of rider of the motor bike. The accident leading to the claim petitions arose on 21.09.2003, when the motorcycle, which the claimant in O.P. (MV) No. 1815/2003 was riding with the claimant in O.P. (MV) No. 1362/2003 as pillion rider, collided with a Jeep which came in the opposite direction. Both of them where knocked down and they sustained very serious injuries. They were taken to the hospital.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the claimants pointed out that they were on the correct side and the road was having a width of 6 metres and the motor bike was found at 2.2 metres south from the north end of the tarred road. No material is found to have been produced by the Insurance Company in support of their contention that there was negligence on the claimants. As per the FIR, as well as final report, the driver of the jeep alone is found negligent and responsible for the accident. Tribunal arrived at the finding of negligence on the driver of jeep on the basis of Exts A1 to A7 documents. Therefore we do not find any ground to reverse the same, It is pertinent to note that the Apex Court in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohanbi [ : 2013 ACJ 2141] and in Meera Devi & Anr. v. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation & Ors. [ : (2014) 4 SCC 511], has held that, in the absence of cogent evidence, no finding can be arrived at regarding contributory negligence, even on the basis of scene mahazar or in case of head on collision. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record, we find that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company regarding contributory negligence on the rider of the motorcycle, are unfounded.