CHANDRIKA Vs. RAVINDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Trichur in OP.MV. No. 604/97. The claimants are the wife and children of deceased Balan who died in a road accident. It is the case of the claimants that while the deceased was riding in his bicycle along Arikkanniyur-Pannisserry public road, the motor cycle ridden by the second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and hit on the cycle resulting in serious injuries and subsequently leading to the death of Mr. Balan.

(2.) The Tribunal found that the accident had taken place in the middle of the road and therefore found 25% contributory negligence on the deceased. We are not inclined to accept the said finding for the following reasons. The road was having a width of 3.84 mts. As per the scene mahazar the accident had taken place almost in the middle of the road. The motor cycle was coming from behind. He had a clear vision and was able to see the cyclist proceeding in front of him. If he was coming in a reasonable speed certainly considering the fact that the road is having a width of 3.84 mts. he could have atleast swerved the vehicle and averted the accident. Further it is a hit from behind. There is a presumption when the hit is from behind the negligence on the rider coming from behind. They are expected to keep a reasonable distance from the vehicle moving in front. If he had followed it the accident would not have taken place. Just because the cyclist was moving through the middle of the road contributory negligence cannot be attributed on him. The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is not correct and therefore it is set aside. We find that the accident had taken place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the second respondent namely the rider of the motor cycle.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal was not right in deducting the pension amount to fix the total income and what the Tribunal has done is that it had taken into account the family pension received by the wife and had considered the loss sustained by the family regarding pension on account of the death of the deceased and thereafter it has also taken Rs. 1,500/- as salary that would have been earned by him from other source. It fixed the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- and calculated the compensation. We do not find any mistake committed by the Tribunal in taking such a decision. The Tribunal has only taken appropriate multiplier of 8 in calculating the compensation. Therefore, the quantum fixed by the Tribunal is only just and reasonable and does not require interference. Therefore the M.F.A. is partly allowed and the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was also responsible for the accident and there was 25% contributory negligence on the part of him is set aside and the claimants are awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,32,000/- with 9 per cent interest on the said amount from the date of petition till realisation and the 3rd respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.