Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1373 (KER)

Salas J. David v. Joseph Manuel

2017-11-02

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, C.T.RAVIKUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal in O.P.(M.V)No. 1305 of 2005 dated 31.1.2013. The appellant is the claimant before the Tribunal. 2. The appellant sustained injuries in a road accident. The appellant was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL-01/Z-8409. The motorcycle was moving behind a lorry bearing Reg. No. KL-05/5222 driven by one Jose Manuel. The lorry took a sudden right turn without any signal. The motorcycle ridden by the appellant hit against the back side of the lorry causing bodily injuries to him. 3. The Tribunal after evidence found that the appellant was also negligent and compensation has to be reduced to 50%. The reason for finding so was that the appellant did not keep sufficient distance from the moving vehicle ahead. 4. This appeal was admitted on 18.06.2013 only for the purpose of deciding the question regarding contributory negligence. The question involved in this appeal is whether the finding of the Tribunal on contributory negligence is liable to be interfered with or not. 5. It is to be noted that apart from the exhibits produced by the appellant, no other form of evidence was adduced in the matter. The contesting respondent did not adduce any evidence. It is perusing copies of scene mahazar and charge sheet that the Tribunal took the view that the appellant was negligent and thus reduced the compensation by 50%. It was found that the total compensation payable to the appellant was Rs. 45,500/-. 6. It is to be noted that the crime is registered only against the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal, after verifying the F.I.R., scene mahazar and charge sheet, was of the prima facie view that the appellant was negligent. But, it is to be noted that in the award itself it is stated that the driver of the offending vehicle took a right turn without giving any signal. It is to be noted under Rules of The Road Regulations, 1989 that a driver, when about to turn to the right shall extend his right arm in a horizontal position outside of his vehicle so as to view to the vehicle driven behind that his vehicle is going to take a right turn (See Rule 13(c) of the Rules of The Road Regulations, 1989). When that be the position, it can be easily concluded that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent. It is to be noted, there is no finding regarding the distance between the offending vehicle and the vehicle driven by the appellant, without which the Tribunal concluded that there was no sufficient distance between the two vehicles. As already noted, the accident has been caused for the reason that the driver of the offending vehicle took right turn without giving any signal. If that be so, there was no material for the Tribunal to conclude that the appellant was negligent. 7. In the light of the findings as above, this Court is of the view that the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant has contributed to the negligence has to be set aside. Accordingly, we do so. Thus, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled for full compensation along with the interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The difference of compensation shall be deposited by the insurer before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 8. The appeal is disposed of as above.