IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 338 of 2003() ---------------------- (AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 16/08/2002 IN OPMV.870/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA) .................... APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, (MADURAI DIVISION-III) LTD. NAGARCOIL. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH SYRIAC RESPONDENTS: APPLICANT ---------------------- SANTHOSH KUMAR.M. S/O.MANIKANTAN K. THIRUVETTAKKOKOM, PAVATHIYANVILA, PARASSALA, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2008 , THE COURT ON 15/07/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO.338/2003 ORDER ON IA NO.1208/2003 IN MACA NO.338/2003 & ORDER ON IA NO.2025/2003 IN MACA NO.338/2003 DISMISSED. SD/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) 15/07/2008 SD/- (V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 338 of 2003 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 15th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 2. Even though, the appellant is denying liability in toto on the ground that the motor cycle rider with whom the claimant was the pillion rider caused the accident, we do not think the finding of the Tribunal on this part can be interfered because there is no evidence to prove that the rider of the motor cycle was negligent. Moreover, the appellant had also put up a case before the MACT that the motor cycle while overtaking a car hit on the bus and therefore the car driver was also involved and his negligent contributed to the accident. However, no evidence is adduced to support this contention. We, therefore, confirm the findings that the accident was caused by the driver of the appellant. 3. So far as the award of compensation is concerned, we find force in the contention of the appellant that there is hardly any evidence based on which compensation could be awarded. Even M.A.C.A.338/2003 -2- the claimant was not examined as a witness to prove his claim. Moreover, without producing any disability certificate, the MACT has awarded Rs.21,600/- under this head. Besides this, the claimant was treated only as an out patient in the hospital, which shows that he had no major injuries. Since Rs.6,000/- is granted for loss of pay for three months and in the absence of any disability certificate, we feel the award of compensation for permanent disability at 5% without medical evidence is untenable. We, therefore, vacate the award of compensation of Rs.21,600/- towards disability. The balance compensation awarded will stand sustained. The MACA is allowed to the above extent. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE) jg