STATE OF KERALA Vs. LEELAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants in these two proceedings, we are convinced that neither there is a case for condonation of delay nor is there any material to interfere with the impugned award dt. April 7, 1995 in O .P. (MV) 33/91 of the MACT, Alappuzha. This order will decide the two proceedings. The first one is a petition for condonation of delay of as many as 415 days.

(2.) As far back as on January 2, 1990 at about 3 p.m. one Maniyan, a coolie and / or a headload worker, when proceeding on his cycle by the southern extremity of Thiruvampady - Pazhaveedu Public Road from east to west, he became the victim of a police jeep bearing No. KRC 4384 which was driven by one Prathapachandran (R2). The dash had thrown the victim down on the ground and he breathed his last. His widow presented the claim petition.

(3.) The Tribunal had no difficulty in recording the finding of rashness and negligence, firstly, on the principle of res ipsa loquitur, and secondly, on a positive statement recorded that even all the respondents did not deny the accident. In fact it is recorded that the respondent No. 2 did not file the written statement. It is further recorded that respondent No. 1 - one of the appellants before us admitted the accident, but attributed it to the negligence of the deceased. The matter was taken up to the Criminal Court by the Circle Inspector of Police, Alappuzha under S.279 & 304A IPC. Therefore this was not a difficulty in the context of the required rashness and / or negligence in the context.