IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 579 of 2003(D) ----------------------------------- OPMV.1660/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P.(MV) NO.1660/96 : ----------------------------------------------------------------------- M.G. THOMASON, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. GHEE DE FRAINKULA, MULLEPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR BUS STAND, EDACOCHIN, COCHIN-6. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISSH SMT.MANJU R. SUDHISH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 IN O.P.(M.V) NO.1660/96 : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DEEPAK D. POWANI, S/O. RAL CHOTTABAR, PARTNER, M/S. JUTE GOODS CENTRE, P.B.NO.162, BAZZAR ROAD, COCHIN-2, RESIDING AT VI/2185, JAI ZULELAL NEW ROAD, COCHIN-2. 2. P.N. SABU, PANACHIKKAL HOUSE, PANDIKUDI, COCHIN-2. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, COCHIN-35. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 579 OF 2003 --------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, in OP(MV) 1660/96. The claimant who was riding on a motor cycle sustained injuries on account of the collision with a jeep. The Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the claimant for compensation. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Learned counsel would contend that the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous. According to him, his client was coming from Thoppumpady towards Thevara and wanted to turn to the right side whereas the jeep was coming from the Willington Island wanted to turn to the left side i.e., to the Thoppumpady side. The accident had taken place on the right side of the junction. When the vehicles want to have a turn at a junction, there is a principle that one has to slow down the vehicle or halt the vehicle and then proceed so that they are sure about the road clearance. It is true that the accident had taken place 4.54 meters south of the northern tar end. Therefore it is clear that the accident had taken place on the junction point. Being a heavy vehicle the driver of the jeep is expected to be more cautious. Similarly the motor cyclist should also have taken reasonable care in such a wide road. If it has been done, the MACA No.579/03 2 accident could have been averted. So this is a case where both the parties have contributed to the accident. Being the driver of a heavy vehicle, I apportion the negligence at 60% on the jeep driver and 40% on the motor cyclist. 3. It is true that the Tribunal has not fixed the quantum of compensation. Since I want to avoid a remand, with the help of the counsel appearing for both sides and on perusal of the documents, I proceed to fix the compensation. The claimant had sustained a fracture on the neck of the talus. He had also pain and contusion over the left parietal area and linear abrasion on the left thigh and was treated as inpatient in the hospital for a period of 8 days. He was working with Abad Fisheries. Ext.A8 would reveal that he was receiving an income of Rs.2,000/- per month. Ext.A6 medical bill would show that he had spent Rs.5631.75/- towards medical expenses. So with these documents, I proceed to fix the compensation. 4. So far as medical expenses is concerned, the bills evidence Rs.5631/-. Therefore, I allow Rs.5,700/- towards medical expenses. He was in the hospital for 8 days and certainly his clothes would have also damaged. Therefore, I allow a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards bystanders expenses and damage to clothing. Certainly he would have taken some extra nutritious food for which I award a sum of Rs.500/-. On account of the same it is submitted that he was not in a position to do the work for MACA No.579/03 3 almost three months. Therefore, I grant him Rs.5,000/- towards loss of earning. On account of the fracture on the foot, there would have been difficulty for him and he would have suffered pain for which I allow Rs.7,000/-. Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life on account of the fracture sustained I allow Rs.6,000/- towards that head. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.25,200/-. He is entitled to 60% of the same which would come to Rs.15,120/-. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded a sum of Rs.15,120/- with 7 % interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation from the respondents. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Being an old case, the Tribunal can consider sympathetically regarding the disbursement of the entire amount. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.579/03 4