P K BABU Vs. T N SADANANDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the claimant in OP(MV)1600 of 1999 on the file of MACT, Pathanamthitta. He sustained injury while driving jeep KL-2/B 1189 through Vadasserikkara- Pampa road at about 3 pm on 30.4.99, when jeep KRO -7128 driven by the first respondent which came from the opposite side dashed against the other jeep at Madthumoozhy. He sustained injuries and claimed a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal, on the evidence of Exts.A1 to A8 found that appellant has contributed equally to the accident and therefore granted only 50% of the compensation for which appellant would have otherwise entitled to. It is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant was heard. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant was that only first respondent was charge-sheeted by the police under Ext.A4 final report and therefore there is no justification for finding contributory negligence and that too to the extent of 50% and therefore the award is to be modified.

(3.) The Tribunal, on the basis of Ext.A2 scene mahazar, found that Vadasserikkara-Pampa road at the scene of occurrence at Madthumoozhy is lying east west. The jeep driven by appellant was admittedly proceeding from east to west. The jeep driven by first respondent was coming from west to east. Ext.A2 establishes that the tarred road is having a width of 7.2 metres. As rightly found by the Tribunal, the proper side of the jeep driven by appellant was the southern portion of the road. The accident occurred 2.54 metres from the south of the northern tarred end. It clearly establish that the jeep driven by the appellant was on the wrong side and the jeep driven by first respondent was on the correct side. No other evidence was adduced. The final report submitted by the police cannot be taken as a substative evidence to prove that accident was caused only due to the negligence of the other driver. In spite of the fact that appellant was on the wrong side, Tribunal has only found that appellant has contributed to the extent of 50%. I do not find any reason to interfere with that finding. Appeal is dismissed as bereft of merits.