IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 727 of 2004(D) ----------------------------------- O.P(MV).NO.1007/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS ASST.ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAMEER, S/O. MOHAMMED, THEKKETHIL HOUSE, THENKARA POST, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. 2. P.T.MATHEW, S/O. THOMAS, PULIKUNNEL HOUSE, KURUMBALANGODE, CHUNGATHARA P.O. MALAPPURAM DIST. 3. KUNJUMOHAMMED, S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, CHOLASSERY HOUSE, NILAMBUR POST, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ===================== M.A.C.A.No.727 of 2004 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy,J. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. The first respondent in this case sustained injuries in a motor accident. While he was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle, it collided with a tempo van insured by the appellant - Insurance Company. As a result of the collision, both the driver and the pillion rider sustained injuries and they claimed compensation and both the claims were disposed by a common impugned award. In the award, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers of the motor cycle and the tempo van and 75% negligence was attributed to MACA 727/04 -: 2 :- the driver of the tempo van and 25% was attributed to the driver of the motor cycle. So after calculating the compensation payable to the rider of the motor cycle 25% was deducted and only 75% of the amount calculated was directed to be deposited by the Insurance Company. In the case of pillion rider, no such reduction was made. The contention of the appellant is that going by the very same reason, the proportionate liability of the driver of the tempo van is only 75%. The Insurance Company is liable to pay only 75% of the compensation awarded to the pillion rider and 25% of the compensation should have been paid by the rider of the motor cycle. But he was not impleaded as a repondent. We are of the opinion that since 75% of the negligence was apportioned on the part of the driver of the tempo van insured by the Insurance Company only 75% of the compensation awarded need be paid by the Insurance Company with proportionate interest and cost as awarded by the Tribunal. By an interim order, 75% of the decree amount was ordered to be deposited by the Insurance Company. So, the interest need be paid only from the date of application till date of deposit at the rate fixed by the Tribunal. MACA 727/04 -: 3 :- The appeal is allowed to the above extent. J.B.Koshy, Judge. 3 P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 22/5