G. SASI Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal in OP (MV) No. 1251/2004 is the appellant herein, challenging the award to the extent it dismissed the claim petition. Adv. P.C. Chacko, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, entered appearance. Having considered the fact that the 1st respondent was contesting the matter before the Tribunal even on behalf of the 2nd respondent and in view of the order proposed in this appeal, we are not issuing notice to the 2nd respondent.

(2.) Heard; counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. The accident in question occurred on 08-07-2004. According to the appellant he was riding on a motor cycle through Vattappara-Vembayam public road and at the spot of the accident a KSRTC stage carriage which was proceeding in front at a tremendous speed applied brake abruptly, thereby causing the motor cycle to hit on the rear of the bus, which resulted in causing serious injuries to the appellant. In proof of the accident the claimant had produced the records relating to the criminal case registered by the police. Ext.A1 is the copy of the F.I.R registered at Vattappara Police Station. Exhibit A5 is the copy of the draft charge sheet. The above said documents would indicate that the police had registered a case against the 2nd respondent, who was the driver of the bus, and charge-sheeted him for offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code. But the Tribunal relying on the decision of this court in Prasanna v. KSRTC (2008 (4) KLT 953) , held that, "if a vehicle is seen to have hit against another vehicle moving in its front, or ahead, indeed its driver had applied sudden brake, the driver of the vehicle moving ahead, or in front of the vehicle coming behind, cannot be found to have been rash and negligent in having caused the accident." The Tribunal found that the appellant alone was negligent because he had driven the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and cause the same to hit on the back side of the KSRTC bus. Accordingly the claim petition was dismissed holding that the appellant have not succeeded in proving the case that he sustained bodily injuries being involved in road traffic accident whereof the vehicle in question were collided each other.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that, the findings of the Tribunal had no basis on the materials on record and on the evidence available. Reliance was placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal (2011 (3) KLT 648) wherein it is held that, production of police charge-sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence to prove the negligence for the purpose of a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to learned counsel, the appellant had discharged the prima facie burden of proving the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the said evidence remains un-rebutted since no contra evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents. It is further contended that, the Tribunal had failed in appreciating the fact that the accident was caused only due to the abrupt braking of the bus which was being driven in a tremendous speed.