BALAKRISHNAN Vs. NANDAKUMAR AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It was on 6.2.2003 the accident. Two motorbikes collided. One was ridden by the appellant. The other was by the first respondent. The appellant sustained injuries in the accident. The above are facts either admitted or proved.

(2.) Heard Sri.A.R.Nimod, Sri.C.Harikumar and Smt. A.Sreekala, the learned counsel for the appellant, the first respondent and the second respondent respectively.

(3.) The tribunal found contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. The reason for the finding is that the spot of accident shown in Ext A3 scene mahazar is the middle of the road. This is not a case where no evidence was adduced on the side of the appellant to prove that the negligence was on the part of the rider of the other bike. The apex court holds in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan (AIR 2013 SC 2293) that mere position of the vehicles after the accident as shown in the scene mahazar cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving of one or the other driver. Therefore the scene mahazar is not decisive, particularly in a case where evidence is produced.