IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 MACA.No. 817 of 2010(C) ----------------------------------- [O.P(MV).NO.1211/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA] .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT IN THE O.P: ---------------------------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA BRANCH REP. BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, METRO PALACE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & IST RESPONDENT IN THE O.P: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAJI ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM, EDACHERRYPOWATH HOUSE, CHETTUTHODU P.O., THIDANADU. 2. GIJO JOY, S/O.K.A.JOY, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANACKAL P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY. R1 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K). THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. NO. 817/2010-C: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 1275/2010 IN M.A.C.A. NO. 817/2010-C DISMISSED 24/05/2011. SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ M.A.C.A.No.817 Of 2010 ---------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T The second respondent in O.P.(MV).No.1211/2007 on the file of the M.A.C.T, Pala is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the award of Rs.26,300/- with interest as compensation payable to the claimant who is the first respondent in this appeal. 2. The claim petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, alleging that the petitioner sustained injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 21.10.2006. The case of the claimant is that he was riding a motor cycle and when he reached the place of accident an autorikshaw bearing Regn.No.KL-5V/2334, driven by the first respondent in the O.P, in a rash and negligent manner overtook the motor cycle and suddenly stopped in front of the motor cycle without proper signal. As a result the petitioner's motor cycle hit on the autorikshaw and he sustained serious injuries. 3. The Tribunal examined the contentions of the parties, perused Exts.A1 to A8, B1 and the oral evidence tendered by the ::2:: M.A.C.A.No.817 Of 2010 claimant and his witness. The Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded Rs.26,300/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum. 4. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record including Ext.A1- copy of the FIR, Ext.A3-scene mahazar, Ext.A4- FI statement, Ext.B1-copy of the final report, held that the autorikshaw has overtaken the motor cycle and stopped in front of it without any signal, thereby the motor cycle hit on the backside of the autorikshaw. on the basis of the said conclusion the Tribunal took the view that both the petitioner and the driver of the autorikshaw are equally negligent and both of them are responsible for the accident. The Tribunal fixed the negligence of the petitioner at 50% and held that the petitioner/claimant is entitled to get only 50% of the compensation amount. After analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle and driver of the autorikshaw. The finding is recorded on the basis of the evidence on record. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding entered by the Tribunal. ::3:: M.A.C.A.No.817 Of 2010 5. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the total compensation amount is Rs.52,600/- and that the petitioner is entitled to 50% of the said amount. I am also of the view that the compensation fixed under part I & II is just and reasonable and hence requires no interference. In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-