IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1943 MACA NO. 207 OF 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 240/2004 OF I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:

MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

BY ADVS.

SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

1 K.E.SUSY AGED 48 YEARS,W/O.DR.P.GRACIOUS,SUSY BHAVAN,THILLERY,MUNDAKAL VILLAGE,KOLLAM-691001.

2 GISON.G AGED 23 YEARS,S/O.GRACIOUS, -DO- -DO-

3 SOJAN.G AGED 21 YEARS,S/O.GRACIOUS, -DO- -DO-

4 GINCY.G, AGED 15 YEARS,D/O.GRACIOUS, -DO- -DO-

BY ADVS.

M.KIRANLAL MANU RAMACHANDRAN T.S.SARATH R.RAJESH (VARKALA)

SAMEER M NAIR V.M.VISHNU MOHAN GEETHU KRISHNAN HARSHA SUSAN SAM THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The appellant was the first respondent in O.P. (MV)

No.240/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The respondents in the appeal were the petitioners before the Tribunal. The appellant has not impleaded the second respondent before the Tribunal as a party in the appeal. Therefore, the parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

2. The petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of Dr.P.Gracious (deceased)- the husband of the first petitioner and the father of the petitioners 2 to 4. It was their case that, on 12.12.2003, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-2M/7264 along the M.C.Road, a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-15/3880, driven by the second respondent in a negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased. The deceased lost his life instantaneously. The bus was owned by the first respondent. The deceased was employed as an Assistant Director in the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Kerala. The petitioners were the dependents of the deceased. Hence, they claimed compensation from the respondents.

3. The respondents had filed a joint written statement denying the allegations in the claim petition. They contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. They also contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners was excessive. 7. The petitioners produced and marked Exts.A1 to A10 in evidence. The respondents did not let in any evidence.

8. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition, in part, by permitting the petitioners to recover from the first respondent an amount of Rs.18,04,500/- with interest.

9. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the first respondent is in appeal.

10. Heard Sri.Alex Antony, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/first resopondent and Sri.Kiral Lal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1,3 and 4 on the question of admission.

11. The principal grounds of challenge in the memorandum of appeal are:

(i) the Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that the deceased did not have a valid driving licence?

(ii) the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the different heads was excessive? and (ii) the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal was exorbitant?

Ground No.(i)

12. As per Ext.A2 final report filed by the Police, it is proved that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent. The respondents have not let in any evidence to discredit Ext.A1 F.I.R, Ext. A2 final report, Ext.A3 scene mahazar, Exts.A4 and A5 vehicle mahazars and Ext.A6 AMVI report.

13. A Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Pazhaniammal [2011 (3) KLT 648] has categorically held that the production of the final report is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehic