IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 2321 of 2007(C) ------------------------------ OPMV.123/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHARAFUDDEEN.O.T., AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, O.T.HOUSE, KINARUMUKKU, PERALAM VILLAGE, P.O.ETTUKUDUKKA, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DIST. 2. SAJESH.P., AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, RESIDING NEAR UDINOOR HIGH SCHOOL, UDINOOR P.O., UDINOOR, UDINOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST. 3. V.V.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O.AMBU, R/AT VATTIYAM VEETTIL, UDINOOR P.O., UDINOOR, UDINOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.3046 OF 2007 IN M.A.C.A. NO. 2321 OF 2007 DISMISSED 28/8/08 SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. [ True Copy ] P.A. TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2321 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod in O.P.(MV)123/03. The claimant, aged 25 years sustained injuries in a road accident. He was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-9/7863. It collided with a lorry bearing registration No.KLS/1101 and it is averred that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the lorry driver. Before the Tribunal a copy of the crime registered was produced as Ext.A1 and a copy of the charge sheet was produced as Ext.A2. The Tribunal found that no contra evidence has been adduced and therefore held the driver of the lorry is responsible for the accident and awarded the compensation. It is against that decision the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the insurance company very persuasively and strongly contends before me that the M.A.C.A. 2321 OF 2007 -:2:- approach of the Tribunal is totally erroneous and it should not have entered into a finding of an absolute negligence on the part of the lorry driver for the following reasons. 3. She would contend that there was no driving licence for the motorcyclist and further that the accident had taken place on the middle of the road and so the finding is not to be be confirmed. If these materials are placed before any authority certainly it is worth consideration. When the scene mahazar is not produced there is nothing to show that the accident had taken place on the middle of the road. So far as the absence of a driving licence, even if accepted for agreement sake, would not be a reason to hold that he was responsible for the accident. There must be evidence to show that his inexperience in driving had resulted in the accident. The investigating agency after due investigation has charge sheeted the driver of the lorry for rash and negligent driving. It has been marked and proved. Therefore, in the absence of any contra evidence, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, the only possible conclusion in the present set of circumstances is to hold that the lorry driver was negligent. Therefore I confirm the said finding. M.A.C.A. 2321 OF 2007 -:3:- 4. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned it can be seen the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.37,400/- out of which Rs.27,700/- is actual medical expenses. The claimant had sustained a subdural haematoma which has to be evacuated and there was a tender on the supra pubic region and therefore I hold the compensation awarded is not excessive which requires any interference. 5. Lastly, the learned counsel would contend that the rate of interest awarded is high. The claim petition has been disposed of only on 28.2.2006 and taking into consideration various decisions of the Apex Court during the relevant period, the Apex Court has held that 7.5% interest is the reasonable interest for that period. Therefore, I reduce the rate of interest to 7.5%. In the result the MACA is disposed of confirming the finding on the question of negligence as well as the quantum of compensation but the interest awarded is reduced to 7.5% from 9%. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-