The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs E.N. Baiju

B. Kemal Pasha, J.—The 5th respondent insurance company in O.P.(MV) No. 3372/98 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, against whom the impugned award dated 08.11.2005 was passed, has come up in appeal.

Two vehicles were involved in the accident in question. The petitioner before the Tribunal was the pillion rider of a scooter. The appellant is the insurer of jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-5/3339. The jeep was being driven from south to north. The case of the appellant is that the rider of the scooter, who was coming from the pocket road situated at the western side of the road was negligent and thereby without any road sense he entered the road, and it so happened that the left footrest of the jeep hit on the scooter. According to the appellant at least 50% of the contributory negligence was there from the part of the rider of the scooter.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Smt. Raji T. Bhaskar and the learned counsel for the first respondent Sri. K . Janardhanan. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the jeep was proceeding through the western portion of the road which was its correct side and the rider of the scooter was negligent in entering the road from the western portion of the road without any road sense and thereby causing the accident. It seems that the rider of the scooter has not suffered any injuries; whereas, the injuries were sustained only by the first respondent herein who was the pillion rider of the scooter. The case of the petitioner was that after entering the road from the western pocket road the scooter turned towards left and was proceeding towards left and it was by then, the jeep came from behind and hit on the scooter thereby the petitioner, who was the pillion rider, sustained injuries.

It seems that the Tribunal has believed the versions of the petitioner even though the police had charge sheeted the rider of the scooter for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that the driver of the jeep was negligent as the accident had occurred only after the scooter has turned towards left and proceeded to the left direction. On hearing either sides and on going through the impugned award and records, this Court does not find anything to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. Matters being so, this appeal is only to be dismissed, and I do so.

In the result, the MACA is dismissed.