IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1115 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.2294/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN OP(MV): ----------------------------------------------------------- C.K.VIJAYAN, S/O.KUNJAN PILLAI, CHEMMATHIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR POWER HOUSE, VYTTILA, COCHIN-19. BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV): ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. C.J.ANDREWS, PROPRIETOR, CHOOLACKAL BUILDING, COCHI-19. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PALLURUTHY. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH - R1 SRI.P.JAYASANKAR - R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.1115 OF 2006 ===================== Dated this the 24th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV)No.2294 of 1997. The claimant, while crossing a road was hit down by a motor bike, as a result of which he sustained injuries. The Tribunal found him 25% negligent, awarded a total compensation of Rs.46,000/- deducted 25% and gave the balance amount as the compensation. 2. Perused the records. So far as the negligence is concerned, the accident had taken place at 2.40 p.m. in the afternoon in a very busy junction and medical records reveal that the claimant had consumed alcohol and that the accident had taken place at 3.7 meters west of the eastern tarred end of the road. The Tribunal held that a pedestrian is also expected to take a reasonable care and therefore held that he has also contributed to the accident especially taking note of the situation of the consumption of alcohol. The Tribunal apportioned the negligence at 25% on the claimant and 75% on the rider of the bike. I do not find any mistake and therefore MACA 1115/2006 -:2:- the said finding is confirmed. 3. So far as the compensation is concerned, I find that the Tribunal has very liberally awarded the compensation. It is true that the claimant had sustained a fracture of the left zygoma and parietal bone with some contusion over the temporal lobe. The Tribunal did not find any disability as such, but it took note of the situation that there had been some impairment of the vision and on those grounds proceeded to determine the compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities in life and Rs.10,000/- for the decreased vision and hearing impairment. On other heads also, i.e. towards loss of earning, medical expenses, etc. proper compensation has been awarded and therefore it cannot be found that the amount awarded is not just. I hold it is a just and reasonable compensation. Therefore appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-