LAWS(KER)-2017-6-126

ABOOBACKER S.S. Vs. VIMAL VARGHESE

Decided On June 22, 2017
Aboobacker S.S. Appellant
V/S
Vimal Varghese Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 1.2.2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P.(M.V)No.559 of 2003. The injured petitioner is the appellant herein. On 26.12.2002 when he was riding his scooter through Old Muvattupuzha road from north to south, a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-7/N-2088, ridden by the first respondent came from the opposite direction and the two vehicles collided. As a result of the collision, the appellant sustained injuries. He was taken to hospital and remained as an inpatient for a period of 16 days. The injuries sustained by him resulted in permanent disability. The appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a total compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The evidence of the appellant consists of the oral evidence of one Dr.Raman (PW1) and documentary evidence consisting of Exts.A1 to A9. No evidence, oral or documentary, was adduced by the respondents. The Tribunal as per the impugned award assessed an amount of Rs. 1,15,380/- as the compensation and by virtue of its finding that the appellant had also contributed to the accident and pursuant to the apportionment of contributory negligence from his part as 50% only 50% of the amount assessed was awarded viz., Rs. 57,690/- rounded off to Rs. 57,800/-. It is seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation that this appeal has been preferred.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent insurance company.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel on both sides that the only question to be considered in this appeal is regarding the entitlement of the appellant to get enhanced compensation. This is a case where there is no dispute regarding the accident, cause of the accident as also the liability of the second respondent insurance company to indemnify the first respondent to the extent he was found liable. As noticed hereinbefore, the Tribunal found that the cause of the accident is nothing but the composite negligence from the part of the riders of the vehicles which are two wheelers. Since the claim petition was filed by the rider of the scooter certainly, to the extent he contributed in the accident he is not entitled to get compensation. Evidently, the Tribunal based on the evidence on record held that both the riders viz., the appellant and the first respondent are equally liable for the accident. To arrive at such a conclusion the Tribunal virtually relied on Ext.A2 scene mahazar and Ext.A4 AMVI report relating the motor cycle and the scooter which was ridden by the appellant. On analysing the evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred almost on the middle portion of the road . When the vehicles involved in the accident are two wheelers certainly, if any one of them was diligent and careful the accident could have been avoided. On carefully considering the discussion of the reasoning of the Tribunal for arriving at the finding that the riders of both the vehicles have equally liable for the accident, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal based on the evidence on record.