IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 MACA.No. 615 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.1346/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- BINOY PAILY, S/O.PAILY, AGED 28 YEARS, PULLITTEL HOUSE, MEKKADAMPU KARA, VALAKOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DANI VARGHESE.M., S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 21 YEARS, MULLAPPILLIKUNDIYIL HOUSE, KADATHY KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 2. VARGHESE.A.K., S/O.ALIAS, MULLAPPILLIKUNDIYIL HOUSE, EASTY KADATHY,MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, T.H.TOWERS, MARKET ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 673. ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.615 of 2007 .................................................................... Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed challenging the order of the MACT rejecting claim petition filed by the appellant for the reason that accident was on account of negligence by the appellant. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance company. 2. Counsel for the appellant submitted that accident is not on account of negligence of the appellant as found by the MACT. He referred to the report of the AMVI and the FIR which show that appellant's two wheeler went and hit the centre of the two wheeler going in front of him. The MACT took this as a case of accident arising on account of appellant's failure to maintain minimum clearance from the vehicle going in front of him. Even though the principle stated by the MACT is correct, we notice that the accident in this case happened only after the vehicle going in front of the appellant's vehicle 2 turned to the right. In fact it is clear from the evidence that the appellant's vehicle went and hit in the middle of the vehicle going in front which only means that the vehicle going in front of the appellant was turning to the right. Of course if the vehicle turned without giving indication, appellant would not have had notice and there was no escape from the accident. On the other hand, the MACT has referred to the Police case and stated that the motor vehicle turned to the right only after giving indication. In any case we are of the view that the accident is not completely attributable to the appellant and at the maximum, his speed and indifference would have contributed to it. Since the appellant was in the hospital for two weeks and he has suffered injuries on his face and since the accident is not fully attributable to him, we award a compensation of Rs.25,000/- which will be deposited by the third respondent with interest at 7.5% p.a. from date of application till date of payment. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms