IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1957 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.383/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: --------------------------- INNOCENT JOHN, S/O JOHN AGED 27, IMPALLIL HOUSE, NAGAPUZHA P.O. KALLOORKAD VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA [REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, JOHN K.S., AGED 54, S/O SCARIA, IMPALLIL HOUSE, NAGAPUZHA P.O. KALLOORKAD VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK] BY ADV. SRI.BABY THOMAS SRI.GIGIMON ISSAC SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. JOY SAM GEORGE, PALAKUNNTHU HOUSE, MELUKAVU P.O., MELUKAVUMATTOM (VIA) KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, THODUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.K.R.KURUP FOR R1 SRI.C.R.VINOD KUMAR FOR R1 SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 1957 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, in OP(MV) 383/02. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.37,500/- but deducted 50% for the contributory negligence. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal challenging the finding of negligence as well as the quantum of compensation. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. The claimant while riding the motor bike sustained injuries when a car which came form the opposite direction hit on the motor bike. The accident took place almost on the middle of the road, i.e., 2.87 meters west of the eastern tar end. The correct side of the motor cycle was the eastern side. He had almost come to the middle of the road which resulted in the accident. The Tribunal has extracted the relevant provisions regarding necessity to drive the vehicle through the left side of the road. So this is a clear case where there was negligence on the part of the claimant. But taking into consideration the fact that it was a MACA No. 1957/06 2 hilly road and that being a heavy vehicle the driver of the car should have also been careful, the Tribunal apportioned the negligence equally. I do not find any mistake committed by the Tribunal. The said finding is confirmed. 3. The next question to be considered is with regard to quantum of compensation. I find that the Tribunal has awarded a just and reasonable compensation on almost all heads . It is the case of the claimant that he was working in a computer center and that the accident had taken place in 2001. Therefore the Tribunal could have taken the income at Rs.2,000/- If Rs.2,000/- is taken as his income, towards loss of earning the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.2,000/-. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation for disability on account of the reason that no disability certificate was produced. But the factum of fracture of both bones of the leg coupled with long hospitalisation and treatment would have resulted in temporary disability as well as loss of amenities and enjoyment in life for him. So, I award Rs.5,000/- for the same thereby entitling the claimant to an additional compensation of Rs.44,500/-. If 50% is deducted from the same it will come to MACA No. 1957/06 3 Rs.22,250/-. Thus the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.3,500/-. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.3,500/- with 6 % interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 1957/06 4