IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 MACA.No. 676 of 2009 ------------------------------- [O.P(MV).NO.1895/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE] .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P(MV): ------------------------------------------------------ T.MANOHARAN, S/O. KUTTIESWARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOLALITHARA HOUSE, KARUVANTHIRUTHI POST, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.A.V.M.SALAHUDIN. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P(M.V): ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.M.ANILKUMAR, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 39 YEARS, KOORKKAM PARAMBIL HOUSE, KOLAKKATTU CHALIL POST, CHELAMBRA VIA, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE SABEERA BUILDING THAZHEPALAM, TIRUR. 3. A.SAHADEVAN S/O. AYYAPPAN, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT MELEPURAMAYIL HOUSE, PALLIKKAL AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM. R1 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, R2 BY ADVS. SMT.D.GEETHA, SMT.K.SHERIN MOHAN. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= M.A.C.A. No. 676 of 2009 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1895 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. In this appeal he challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated April 8, 2008 dismissing his claim for compensation for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. 2. The accident happened on February 10, 2002 at about 7.30 p.m. While the claimant was traveling in an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.KL-10-D-5046 from Kakkanchery to Feroke, due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the auto-rickshaw, it capsized. He sustained fracture of both bones of forearm (left) and small laceration and pain on left foot. Alleging negligence against the third respondent, the driver of the offending auto-rickshaw, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act MACA 676/2009 2 claiming a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. 3. Respondents 1 and 3, the owner and driver of the offending auto-rickshaw, remained absent before the Tribunal. The second respondent, the insurer of the offending auto- rickshaw, filed a written statement admitting the policy, but denied the allegation regarding negligence of the third respondent. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence was adduced by the contesting second respondent. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence of the third respondent, but dismissed the O.P. on the ground that there was no evidence to prove the injuries allegedly sustained by the claimant in an accident. The claimant has come up in appeal challenging the said finding of the Tribunal. 4. Heard the counsel for the claimant and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 5. The following points arise for consideration:- 1) Whether the award of the Tribunal dismissing the O.P. can be sustained? MACA 676/2009 3 2) Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation and if so, what is the quantum? 6. Point No.1:- For several reasons we are inclined to hold that the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that there was no evidence to prove the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident and thereby dismissing the O.P. cannot be sustained. It is proved by Ext.A2 copy of the wound certificate that he sustained fracture of both bones left forearm and laceration on left foot. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the third respondent is not challenged in this appeal. That being so, the claimant is entitled to compensation from the respondents. The second respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle is bound to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle, the first respondent. 7. Point No.2: The next question for consideration is what is the quantum of compensation, the claimant is entitled to. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the period of treatment he has undergone and the fact that he was aged 39 at the time of the accident, we feel MACA 676/2009 4 that a compensation of Rs.15,000/- would be reasonable in this case. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dismissing the O.P. is set aside. The O.P. is allowed, allowing the claimant to recover Rs.15,000/- as compensation from the respondents with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate cost. The second respondent being the insurer of the offending auto-rickshaw is directed to deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the claimant. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn