The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the claimant's own negligence caused the accident, affirming the dismissal of the compensation claim.

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.539 of 2010 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, challenging the dismissal of the award dated 22.04.2014 passed by the tribunal. The respondents herein were the respondents before the Tribunal.

2. According to the appellant/claimant, on 05.02.2010, at about 4.30 p.m., while the claimant was driving a car bearing registration No.KL-44/677 through Kothamangalam – Muvattupuzha road, a private bus bearing registration No.KL-17/E- 8964 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the car and as a result, he sustained serious injuries. The appellant approached the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-.

3. The first, second and third respondents were the owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. Though notice was issued to the respondents, the first and second respondents remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent – insurer filed a written statement, contending that the accident was solely due to negligence on the part of the petitioner who was driving the car in violation and in breach of statutory requirements. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A11 and B1 to B3 were marked. Pws.1 and 2 were also examined. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, dismissed the petition finding that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the claimant himself and held the respondents cannot be held liable for the injuries sustained on account of the accident. Challenging the dismissal of the original petition, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard Sri. T.K. Koshy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. A.R.George, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant while driving the car on the correct side through Kothamangalam – Muvattupuzha road, the private bus which came from the opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner, violating the traffic rules, hit the car and as a result of the accident, the appellant sustained serious injuries. The appellant further submitted that all necessary documents relating to the accident, the details of the injuries sustained and the treatment undergone were duly produced before the Tribunal. The evidence of witnesses as well as the evidence of the appellant/claimant were also adduced before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal found fault with the appellant for not producing the final report and the scene mahazar. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the witness, who was examined as PW1, was found by the tribunal as trustworthy and also the testimony of the PW2 appellant, that the accident occurred on the correct side, was also disbelieved by the Tribunal. Immediately after the accident, at the time of admission to the hospital, the appellant was in an unconscious state and, therefore, was not in a position to give a First Information Statement (FIS) to the police. Moreover, the counsel argued that the dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal relying on scene mahazar, is also legally unsustainable. It is also submitted that the respondents have not adduced any evidence and in such circumstances the evidence of PW1 and PW2 ought to have been accepted by the Tribunal. The learned counsel also argued that Ext.B1 final report is not the conclusive evidence to prove that there was negligence on the part of the appellant in driving the car. While he was examined as PW2, he had clearly testified that against Ext.B1 fi