M.A.C.A. No. 1213 of 2012. Case: K. Pradeepan Vs The Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.. High Court of Kerala (India)
| Case Number | M.A.C.A. No. 1213 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: C.S. Manu, S.K. Premraj, V. Saritha, Anoop Joseph, Abhilash Akbar and T.B. Sivaprasad, Advs. and For Respondents: Sreeprakash K. Nair, Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, SCs and A.A. Ziyad Rahman, Adv. |
| Judges | T. R. Ramachandran Nair and P. V. Asha, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 255(1); Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 163A, 166 |
| Judgement Date | February 26, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Kerala (India) |
Judgment:
P. V. Asha, J.
-
The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No. 699/2000 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that negligence was on the part of the appellant. This appeal is filed against the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence and consequential denial of compensation to him.
-
On 1.1.2009 while the appellant was driving his car bearing Reg. No. KL-5/B-1819 along the National Highway from north to south, at a place called Evoor, a Stage Carriage (K.S.R.T.C.) Bus bearing Reg. No. KL-15/3078, which came in the opposite direction, violently hit the car and caused very severe injuries to him and his wife who was travelling along with him. They were immediately taken to the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha and thereafter to the Ernakulam Medical Centre. He underwent inpatient treatment there, for the period from 2.1.1999 to 27.1.1999 and from 7.4.99 to 16.4.99. From Ext. A2 treatment certificate issued from Ernakulam Medical Centre, it can be seen that the appellant sustained multiple sutured wounds, fractures of [1] (R) ulna, [2] 2nd/3rd/4th ribs ® side, [3] ® parasymphysis of mandible with communition, [4] (L) angle of mandible, [5] (L) condyle of mandible, avulsion of +1 tooth, alveolar fracture - lower anterior region and fractures of 2121+2 teeth. Wound debridement was done for ® forearm. It is also seen that he underwent tracheostomy wound debridement for forearm, open reduction and internal fixation of mandibular fractures, extraction of teeth, secondary repair of facial lacerations, POP cast during the period of his treatment there from 2.1.99 to 27.1.99. It further shows that POP cast and arch bars were removed on 27.2.99. He was again admitted there, on 7.4.99 with residual deformity for which sagittal split osteotomy was done. He was discharged from there, on 16.4.99. Thereafter he was again admitted on 24.5.99 for removal of arch bars and elastics, root canal treatment etc.
-
Before the Tribunal evidence was adduced examining P.Ws. 1 to 4 and marking Exts. A1 to A17. The appellant was examined as P.W. 1, his wife Smt. Mangala was examined as P.W. 2, an outsider Sri Karthikeyan was examined as P.W. 3 and Surveyor was examined as P.W. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 - KSRTC and driver of the bus, remained exparte. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company, though filed a counter affidavit, did not adduce any evidence. The appellant's wife had also filed O.P.(MV) 706/2000 seeking compensation towards injuries she sustained in the very same accident. Both the cases were tried together.
-
Issue No. 2 considered by the Tribunal was: whether the incident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent. In the claim petition as well as in the deposition, P.Ws. 1 and 2 asserted that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the KSRTC bus. At the same time it was the case of the Insurance Company that, the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the appellant herein. In the F.I. statement as well as the crime registered, the driver of the bus was implicated as the accused. In the final report filed by the Police, the appellant was shown as accused. However he was acquitted by the Magistrate Court by judgment in C.C. No. 110/1999. The Tribunal found that the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2, i.e. that of the appellant and of his wife were self serving and interested. Regarding the independent witness P.W. 3, the Tribunal found that he was not a genuine eye witness to the occurrence. It was further stated that he was not a witness to the prosecution charges and he could not state the actual colour of the car. For these...
To continue reading
Request your trial