LIBASH Vs. AJESH, K.R. GARDENS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award dated 16.11.2012 in O.P.(M.V)No. 767 of 2005 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal. The appellant was the claimant therein. He filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.5.2005 while he was riding a motor cycle. On that day, he was riding a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/R-1940. When the said vehicle reached near Gurukulam junction, the offending vehicle which is a private stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-16/5859 came from the opposite direction and dashed against his motor cycle and consequently, he sustained injuries. He was taken to Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and Ext.A6 discharge card would reveal that he had been an inpatient there from 21.5.2005 to 1.7.2005. Ext.A3 treatment certificate would reveal that he sustained the following bodily injuries owing to the accident:-

(2.) Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

(3.) In the light of the arguments advanced before us and taking note of the contentions raised in the appeal it is obvious that the question to be considered in this appeal is whether the challenge against the twin reasons assigned by the Tribunal for holding contributory negligence against the appellant are sustainable ? A careful scanning of the impugned award would reveal that for arriving at the conclusion that the appellant had contributed to the accident and for apportioning the contributory negligence equally between the appellant and the 2nd respondent, the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident the Tribunal firstly assigned the reason that the appellant had not produced the driving licence to establish that at the time of the accident he was possessing a valid driving licence. The second reason assigned by the Tribunal is to the effect that since the road was having a clear straight vision of 100 metres, on seeing that the other vehicle coming to his direction though through the wrong side, the appellant ought to have taken his vehicle further to the left side of the road, i.e, towards the road margin having more than 2 metres and averted the accident. In short, the Tribunal found that since the appellant did not take his vehicle further to the left side of the road to avert such an accident despite the fact that space was available on the road margin, he had contributed to the accident.