IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 34 of 2007() -------------------------------- OPMV.755/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANTS:CLAIMANT: ---------------------- P.B. PADMANABHAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 44 YEARS, PUTHENPURA HOUSE, PINDIMANA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) SRI.SAMSON AROOJA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. SURESH T.R., THADATHIL PUTHENPURA HOUSE, AYOORPADOM, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. ABDULKHADER, SAITHUKUDY HOUSE, PINDIMANA P.O.,KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ELENGICAL PLAZA, KOTHAMANGALAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 34 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)755/03. It is the case of the claimant that he sustained injuries while he was travelling in an auto rickshaw, on account of the capsizing of the auto rickshaw driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal found against the claimant and dismissed the claim application. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant. Though notice is served others have not entered appearance. The Tribunal found that though the accident is alleged to have taken place on 6.3.03 the first information statement is given only on 9.3.03. According to the Court below it raises a doubt. The insurance company has contended that he was driving the auto rickshaw and if really the other person namely the first respondent had also sustained injuries the M.A.C.A. 34 OF 2007 -:2:- claimant should have produced some documents to prove the same. It did not find in favour of the deposition of PW1 and therefore non-suited the claimant. 3. I had perused the documents. The mere delay of three days in filing the first information statement shall not be a ground to reject the same. The police after due investigation has filed a charge sheet, Ext.A5 and thereafter by Ext.A6 the criminal Court has convicted the first respondent for the alleged act of negligence. So the investigating agency after due investigation had held that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. Mere suspicion cannot be a ground for rejection and therefore I hold that the documentary evidence in this case establishes the factum that the accident had took place while the first respondent was driving the vehicle and he was negligent and therefore I set aside the said finding of the Tribunal. 4. Now, the next question to be considered is regarding the quantum of compensation. The records are M.A.C.A. 34 OF 2007 -:3:- available before Court which would show that the claimant has sustained a fracture on the clavicle with lacerated wound on the parietal region. He was admitted on 6.3.03 and discharged on 10.3.03. He was also administered antibiotics. He had also expended a sum of Rs.1,235/- for purchase of medicines. With these materials let me fix the compensation. 5. Certainly on account of the clavicle fracture he would have been prevented from doing any work for a period of two months. Therefore at the rate of Rs.1,500/- I award Rs.3,000/- towards loss of earnings. He was in the hospital for five days and he had spent an amount of Rs.1,235/- for medicines. Certainly there would have been somebody with him during the period of hospitalisation and his cloths would have been damaged. He should have taken some nutritious food also. Considering all these aspects I award Rs.2,000/- under that head. Certainly he would have visited hospitals more than two or three occasions and therefore I award Rs.500/- under that head. The fracture of the clavicle would have caused him pain besides the lacerated wound on the M.A.C.A. 34 OF 2007 -:4:- parietal region. So towards pain and sufferings I award Rs.7,000/-. Certainly, though there is no disability certificate, there would have been temporary loss of amenities and enjoyment in life for the person for which I award a sum of Rs.4,000/-. Therefore the claimant will be entitled to a compensation of Rs.16,500/-. The insurance company is liable to pay the amount and all the respondents are jointly and severally liable. In the result the MACA is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is set aside and the claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs.16,500/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the insurance company is directed to deposit the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-