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. 901 of 2007() -------------------------------- OPMV.47/2000 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- JOJO ANTONY. M., S/O.MELUKKARAN ANTONY, KORATTY DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY CHERIYAN, S/O.PAVU, AMBOOKKEN HOUSE, KORATTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. JIJO, S/O KUNJILO, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE, AYYAMPUZHA DESOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ST.JOSEPHS BUILDING, PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 901 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV)47/00. The claimant, a 31 year old driver sustained injuries in a road accident on account of a hit by a jeep which was coming from behind. The Tribunal found that both the drivers are equally negligent and awarded a compensation of Rs.10,321/- and deducted 50%. It is against that decision, the claimant has come in appeal. 2. Heard the counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. It can be seen that both the vehicles were moving in the very same direction. Both of them were expected to keep the same side. The scooterist should have taken some care before turning the vehicle and similarly if the driver of the jeep had kept a reasonable distance of 10 mtr. as prescribed by rules he could have also averted the accident. It is also a settled position that a rider of a heavy M.A.C.A. 901 OF 2007 -:2:- vehicle is expected to take more care and attention. Taking into consideration these aspects I apportion 75% negligence on the jeep driver and 25% on the scooterist. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant had brought to my notice the disability certificate issued by a neuro-surgeon which indicates that the claimant has lost the loss of smell. It can be seen that there was no injury which would indicate any head injury though the doctor has stated that it is as a result of the head injury. What is sustained by the claimant is only a lacerated wound and not even a scan or other thing is taken to indicate involvement of any head injury. Therefore I am not accepting the disability certificate as rightly done by the Tribunal. 4. So far as the quantum is concerned the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,321/-. It is clear from the case records that the claimant had sustained a wound on the occipital area, another wound on the lip and abrasions on the foot, hand, elbow etc. He was inpatient in the hospital for three days. But the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation M.A.C.A. 901 OF 2007 -:3:- for the actual loss of earnings. Certainly he would have been prevented from doing any work for 3 to 4 weeks and therefore I award Rs.2,000/- under that head thereby making the total compensation to Rs.12,321/-. He is entitled to 75% of the same which would come to Rs.9,240/-. Therefore the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs.9,240/- with 6% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the insurance company is directed to deposit the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-