SUBAIDA Vs. SAFEER K K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the above appeal came up for admission, Adv. K.S.Santhi, Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent entered appearance. In view of the fact that the judgment proposed in this case will affect only the 3rd respondent, because they have admitted the policy of the vehicle in question, we found it not necessary to issue notice to the respondents 1 and 2. Hence the appeal is hereby disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) The claimants in O.P(MV)No.1488/2016 on the files of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode are the appellants herein, challenging the award dismissing the claim petition. The accident in question occurred on 6.6.2014 at 1.45 p.m. The person died in the accident named, Mohammed Shamnas was riding a motor cycle. According to the claimants, at the spot of the accident, a bus driven by the 2nd respondent in the front of the motor cycle suddenly breaked without any signal, causing the motor cycle to hit on the bus and the deceased sustained very grievous injuries. He succumbed to the injuries sustained on the way to hospital. The respondents 1 and 2 are the owner and the driver of the bus respectively and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the bus.

(3.) The claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal found that, going by the police records, the deceased himself was negligent in causing the accident. It was noticed that, the police after investigation of the case had submitted the final report implicating the deceased accusing him with offences punishable under Sections 279,338 and 304A of IPC; and reporting the charge as abated due to his death. It was also noticed that the deceased was riding the motor cycle without any valid licence. The claimants have adduced oral evidence by examining PW1, who deposed that the deceased was actually a pillion rider. But he deposed that the motor cycle in question dashed on the rear of the bus. The Tribunal concluded that the claimants have failed in proving any negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, who is the driver of the bus. Following the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sinitha (2011(4) KLT 821), the Tribunal held that the claimants are not entitled to get compensation under Section 163A, because the deceased himself was negligent in causing the accident. The Tribunal further observed that the deceased cannot be considered as a third party under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, because the deceased himself was the person negligent.