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 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 7 of 2008(A) -------------------- OPMV.295/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/ADDL.5TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- K.M.VARKEY, S/O MATHEW, KALKKAKUNNEL HOUSE, COMBAYAR P.O., IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ------------------------------------------------ 1. VASANTHAKUMARY, W/O SUKUMARAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PACHADY P.O., PACHADY KARA, UMMAKKADA BHAGAM, KALKONTHAL VILLAGE. 2. SHYAM, S/O JAYANANDAN, SHYAM BHAVAN, NEDUMKANDAM P.O., NEDUMKANDAM. 3. K.A.VARKEY, S/O MATHEW, KOORKKAKUNNEL HOUSE,(BLOCK NO.468), COMBAYAR P.O., NEDUMKANDAM (VIA) 4. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KATTAPPANA. 5. P.H.AZEEZ, PARACKAL HOUSE, BALAGRAM P.O., SANYASIODA, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. ADV. SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR) FOR R1 SRI.A.H.NAJMAL FOR R1 SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R4 SMT.ANUSHA RAMACHANDRAN FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 7 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JUNE 14, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. The appellant is the 5th respondent in OP(MV) 295/2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha. The 1st respondent/claimant filed the OP before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident. The accident happened while the jeep in which she was travelling on January 27, 1999 collided head on with a lorry at Theni. 2. The 1st respondent, the driver of the offending jeep, remained absent and was set ex parte by the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent, the alleged owner of the offending jeep, filed a written statement contending that he has transferred the vehicle to the additional 4th respondent. The 4th respondent would contend that he has transferred the vehicle to the additional 5th respondent. The additional 4th respondent remained absent before the Tribunal. The present owner of the jeep was impleaded as additional 5th respondent. He filed a written statement denying the liability. 3. This OP was jointly tried along with another OP filed by another injured person in the accident and a common award was M.A.C.A.7 of 2008 2 passed. Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the claimants. Exts.X1 and Ext.X2 were also marked. No evidence was adduced by the contesting respondents. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent and assessed a compensation of Rs.1,08,000/-. The Tribunal found that there was also contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Therefore the Tribunal awarded only 50% of the said compensation amount i.e. Rs.54,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation against additional 5th respondent, the present owner of the offending jeep. The additional 5th respondent, the present owner of the offending jeep, has come up in appeal challenging the said judgment and award of the Tribunal dated April 26, 2007. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondents. 5. The counsel for the appellant, the present owner of the offending jeep, contended that the appellant was not the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident, that he was the owner of jeep bearing registration No.KL6A/2215 and that jeep bearing registration No.KL5A/2215 does not belong to him and that therefore the claimant is not entitled to any compensation from him. The claimant, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the Tribunal. M.A.C.A.7 of 2008 3 6. The following points arise for consideration: I. Whether the appellant was the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL5A/2215 at the time of the accident? II. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT No.I 7. The 2nd respondent in the OP, the alleged owner of the offending jeep, contended that he was not the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Therefore additional 4th respondent was impleaded in the case. He remained absent. Later, the claimant summoned the RC particulars from the RTO and marked that document as Ext.X1. It was revealed from Ext.X1 that the additional 5th respondent was the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. He admitted that he was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident. As it is seen from Ext.X1 that the appellant was the registered owner of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in finding that additional 5th respondent was the registered owner of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The Tribunal is also justified in awarding compensation against the 5th respondent as the offending vehicle had no valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. POINT No.II 8. The next point to be considered is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. The claimant M.A.C.A.7 of 2008 4 sustained the following injuries: “Type III A compound fracture of lateral femoral condyle and comminuted fracture of patella of right knee.” 9. The Tribunal assessed a compensation of Rs.1,08,000/-. The break up of the compensation assessed is as follows: loss of earning Rs.24,000/- transportation 10,000/- extra nourishment 5,000/- bystander's expenses 10,000/- treatment expenses 200/- pain and suffering 30,000/- disability 28,800/- 10. As the Tribunal found that there was 50% negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, who is not impleaded by the claimant before the Tribunal, the Tribunal awarded only 50% of the compensation, which appears to be correct. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and not excessive. That being so, the appeal has to be dismissed. In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-