IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 2163 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.1990/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., A.M.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT; ------------------------ JIJO BENNY, S/O.BENNY, PUDUSSERY HOUSE, SUB JAIL ROAD, ALUVA. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.2163 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1990/2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. He sustained the following injuries in a motor accident that occurred on March 30, 2001 at about 5.00 a.m. when the Maruthi car bearing Reg.No.KL-7 AD- 7793 in which he was travelling collided head on with a lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-7C-2527at Kunnumpuram on the Angamaly-Aluva National Highway ; 1. Lacerated wound left side of forehead 2 cm. 2. Multiple abrasions face, left shoulder and left foot. 3. Fracture to neck of left humerus 4. Contusion chest. 2. Alleging negligence against the second respondent, the driver of the lorry, the claimant filed the O.P. under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. MACA.No.2163/2007 2 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the offending lorry remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending vehicle admitted the policy, but contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car. This O.P. was jointly tried along with other O.Ps. filed by other injured persons and a common award was passed. PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exts.A1 to A45 were marked on the side of the claimants. On the side of the third respondent, Ext.B1 was marked. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 31,725/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The third respondent Insurance Company has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as the finding of the Tribunal regarding the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and the counsel for the claimant. 5. The following points arise for consideration : 1) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the MACA.No.2163/2007 3 accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent, the driver of the lorry can be sustained ? 2) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive ? Point No.1 6. The police has charged the case against the driver of the lorry as seen from Ext.A10 certified copy of the FIR. Further PWs 1 to 5 examined on the side of the claimant testified in a convincing manner that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry . No evidence was adduced on the side of the third respondent Insurance Company to show that there was any negligence on the part of the driver of the car or to show that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Therefore, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in holding that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent, the driver of the lorry. The finding of the Tribunal on this point is confirmed. Point No.2. 7. The claimant is a Stationery Merchant earning Rs. 3,000/- MACA.No.2163/2007 4 per month. Taking into consideration the nature of the injury sustained by the claimant and the period of treatment the claimant has undergone, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal and the same has to be dismissed. We do so. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.2163/2007 5