Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946 MACA NO. 275 OF 2011 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.07.2007 IN OPMV NO.2300 OF 2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE APPELLANT/PETITIONER: POCKER, S/O.ALAVI, AGED 67 YEARS MELE CHIRATTU HOUSE, P.O.PALLIKKAL BAZAR,, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 A.K.FIROZ BALARAMA, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARATTUKARA POST,, THRISSUR, PIN 680671. 2 SUMODH SO.DAMODHARAN PUNIRPURAYIL HOUSE, KOTTAM DESOM,, MAKERI DESOM, MAKERI POST, KANNUR, PIN 673516. 3 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, KARUPAM ROAD, THRISSUR,, PIN 680001. BY ADVS. SMT.K.S.HASEENA SRI.C.KHALID SRI.K.P.MOHAMED SHAFI MACA 275 of 2011 2 SMT.K.K.NESNA SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP SMT.K.REEHA KHADER SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA SRI.T.P.SAJID THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA 275 of 2011 3
JUDGMENT
This appeal is at the instance of the petitioner in OP(MV)No.2300 of 2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, as his claim was dismissed by the Tribunal.
2. The case of the appellant was that, on
Kozhikode Ramanattukara road, KL-8-K-1629 bus driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down, and he sustained injuries. He was taken to Koya’s hospital, Cheruvannur for treatment. Though he approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.60,000/-, the Tribunal dismissed his claim, finding that he could
MACA 275 of 2011 4 not prove that, he sustained injuries in the road traffic accident involving KL-8-K 1629 bus.
3. The 1st respondent was the owner of KL-8-K 1629 bus, the 2nd respondent was its driver, and the 3rd respondent was its insurer during the relevant period.
4. The case of the respondents is that, the bus
bearing registration No.KL-8-K 1629 was not involved in the accident, and so they have no liability to indemnify the insured or to compensate the appellant/petitioner.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/insurer. MACA 275 of 2011 5
6. Now this Court is called upon to find out whether there is any irregularity, illegality and impropriety in the impugned award warranting interference by this Court.
7. The definite case of the appellant is that,
when the accident occurred, he was walking through the side of Kozhikode Ramanattukara road. Exhibit A1 copy of the FIR will show that, while the appellant was walking through the side of Kozhikode Ramanattukara road, he was knocked down by KL-10-K6985 autorikshaw driven by one Mr.Subhash Baby, in a rash and negligent manner.
8. In the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, his case was that while he was walking through the side of Kozhikode MACA 275 of 2011 6 Ramanattukara road, he was knocked down by KL-8-K 1629 bus driven by the 2nd respondent Sumodh, in a rash and negligent manner.
9. The police investigated crime No.57/2001 of
Kozhikode City Traffic police station, and filed final report against the 2nd respondent Sumodh, and the incident narrated in the charge sheet is to the effect that there occurred a collision between KL-10-K-6985 autorikshaw and KL-8-K 1629 bus, due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 2nd respondent, and the appellant/petitioner herein was a passenger in that autorickshaw.
10. The appellant never had a case either in the first information report or in the claim petition, that he was travelling in the MACA 275 of 2011 7
autorickshaw at the time of accident. So the Tribunal rightly found that, the appellant/petitioner failed to prove his case that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident involving KL-8-K-1629 bus, and so respondents 1 to 3 have no liability to compensate the petitioner, if at all he sustained any injuries.
11. Since the appellant/petitioner failed to
prove before the Tribunal that, he was a passenger in the autorickshaw, and it was hit by the offending bus due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent cannot have any vicarious liability, and the 3rd respondent has no liability to indemnify him also. So this Court finds no reason to
MACA 275 of 2011 8 interfere with the findings of the Tribunal, and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal fails and hence dismissed. Sd/- SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE ska