IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 2048 of 2009() --------------------------------- OPMV.857/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PATHANAMTHITTA, REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ------------------------------------------- ELSY KURIAN, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.T.V.KURIAN, RESIDING AT MERRY LAND, NALAENCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2010, ALONG WITH MACA. NO.2049 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO.2382/2009 IN MACA. NO.2048/2009 DISMISSED 06/08/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA Nos.2048 & 2049 OF 2009 ===================== Dated this the 6th day of August 2010 JUDGMENT These appeals are preferred against the common award passed in O.P.(MV)Nos.857 & 855 of 2000 respectively by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The claimant in O.P.(MV) 857/2000 has been awarded a compensation of Rs.29,650/- and the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.855/2000 has been awarded a compensation of Rs.26,602/-. Aggrieved by the findings on negligence and quantum the insurance company has preferred the appeals. 2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The unfortunate accident took away the life of a bread winner and caused injuries to the wife and son. It was an accident between a car and a jeep. The accident took place on 23.1.1999. The Tribunal, relying upon Exts.A1 to A5 arrived at a finding on MACAs 2048 & 2049/2009 -:2:- the question of negligence against the jeep driver. The learned counsel for the insurance company would contend that the accident had taken place almost on the middle of the road and therefore contributory negligence has also to be found. 3. I had carefully scrutinised the award. On the basis of the first information report, a case was registered, scene mahazar was prepared and after due investigation, charge sheet was filed making the driver of the jeep as the accused in the criminal case. On receipt of the summons, the jeep driver appeared and pleaded guilty also before the competent Magistrate. I am conscious of the fact that pleading of guilt by the driver alone shall not be a binding factor to consider the question of negligence. Petitioners have produced scene mahazar. The car was proceeding from south to north and its correct side was western side. The jeep was proceeding from the opposite direction and its correct side was eastern side. The road at the place of accident is having a width of 6.60 metres. MACAs 2048 & 2049/2009 -:3:- As per the scene mahazar, the accident had taken place 3.76 metres west from the eastern tar end. Or, in other words, the distance from the western tar end to the place of accident was 2.84 metres. The jeep driver had not kept his side and he had slightly transgressed to the wrong side and thereafter the incident had taken place. So the scene mahazar coupled with the final investigation report, viz. the charge and admission of guilt by the jeep driver would establish that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the jeep driver. 4. Learned counsel for the insurance company would contend before me that the accident had taken almost on the middle of the road. As stated by me, it is not on the middle of the road. Further, considering the width of the jeep, it is clear that it had transgressed very much on the wrong side and had caused the accident and therefore the principle that when a head on collision takes place negligence should be equally apportioned cannot be made applicable to this case. Therefore MACAs 2048 & 2049/2009 -:4:- I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision taken by the Tribunal on the question of negligence. 5. Now regarding the question of quantum of compensation. Learned counsel had highlighted before me that the Tribunal has awarded a very huge amount as compensation for pain and suffering. I feel there is some justification in what he submits. Both the claimants were admitted in the hospital on 23.1.1999 and discharged on 30.1.1999. The injury sustained by the mother is haematoma on the parietal region. The medical bills produced were for Rs.1,649/- For such an injury, I think Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering is slightly on the higher side and I reduce the compensation for pain and suffering by Rs.3,000/- making it Rs.12,000/-. So also in the case of a child, it was a fracture of nasal bone and there was no serious complication at all and therefore there also it is necessary to reduce pain and suffering compensation by Rs.3,000/-. Therefore in both these cases, the MACAs 2048 & 2049/2009 -:5:- compensation is reduced by Rs.3,000/- each which means in O.P.(MV)No.857/2000, the compensation is fixed at Rs.26,950/- and in O.P.(MV)No.855/2000, the compensation is fixed at Rs.23,602/- with the interest granted by the Tribunal and costs. Appeals are disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-