IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 38 of 2010(A) ------------------------- OPMV.117/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ---------------------------------- ASHOKAN, P.K. S/O.KARUPPAN, PARAYAM VALAPPIL HOUSE, AYROOR PO. BY ADV. SRI.AYPE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------ MARY VARGHESE, CHENNEKKADAN HOUSE, CHERUKADAPPURAM, NORTH KUTHIYATHODE PO. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 38 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in O.P.(MV)117/04. The claimant, a 58 year old lady, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.11,700/- after deducting 10% for the contributory negligence. Challenging the percentage of contributory negligence as well as the quantum the respondent has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent had chosen to remain absent. Let me first consider about the negligence factor. The accident had taken place very near Angamaly Railway Station. The road at the place is having a width of 5.6 mtrs. The accident had taken place 3.4 mtrs. east of the western tarred end. The car was proceeding from south to north. So the correct side of the car was western side. From the place of accident it can be M.A.C.A. 38 OF 2010 -:2:- seen that the car had slightly transgressed into the wrong side. It is also seen that the pedestrian was almost on the middle of the road. When a vehicle is plied through a busy area that is in the premises of a Railway Station there is a responsibility cast upon the driver of the vehicle to bestow maximum attention to avert the accident, especially when the victim involved in the accident is a 58 year old lady. Moreover the lady also should have been little more careful and should have seen both the sides before crossing the road. So taking stock of the entire situation I find this is a fit case where negligence can be apportioned at 80% on the car driver and 20% on the claimant. 3. The next is regarding the quantum. The claimant did not sustain very serious injuries at all. She had a lacerated wound on the occipital area and an abrasion on the elbow and knee. She was treated as an inpatient in the hospital for 5 days. There is nothing to show that any other complication that she had developed and therefore taking into consideration the entire materials I feel a sum of M.A.C.A. 38 OF 2010 -:3:- Rs.7,000/- as compensation would be sufficient in a case of this nature. When 20% is deducted from that for the contributory negligence then the claimant will be entitled to Rs.5,600/-. In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,600/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the appellant herein is directed to deposit the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. If any amount is already deposited let it be given credit to and if any amount is in balance that alone need to be deposited. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-