IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1941 of 2005() ---------------------------------- OPMV.505/2000 OF ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, (ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE), THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ PRABHAKARAN, S/O.GOPALAN, THAYYIL HOUSE, MATTANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SRI.PREM DOMINIC RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3: -------------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.1941 OF 2005 ===================== Dated this the 24th day of October 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in O.P.(MV)No.505 of 2000. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and his claim for compensation has been rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the accident and negligent are not proved. A perusal of the award would show that the Tribunal has confused itself in arriving at such a decision. At the outset, it has to be stated that there was no dispute regarding the accident. The case of the claimant is that while he was sitting in an auto rickshaw and talking with the driver, a bus came and hit on the auto rickshaw resulting in injuries to him. Ext.A3 is the wound certificate, which is also referred to by the Tribunal. The Tribunal then finds fault with the insurance company for not objecting to the marking of the documents. Having marked, the documents without objection, it may not be proper on the part of a Tribunal or a Court to observe that it should not have been marked. If there was any apprehension in the mind of the court, it should have been got cleared by MACA 1941/2005 -:2:- putting specific questions. Similarly, the Tribunal finds fault with the scene mahazar as well stating that it is not clear from the scene mahazar where the accident took place. Since the insurance company has not disputed the accident and there is no plea for any of the parties that there is a collusion between the owner, driver and the claimant it is not proper to throw away the claim on a technical ground. The factum of accident is proved. The claimant was only a passenger in an auto rickshaw. Therefore he has not contributed anything to the accident and therefore I feel this is a fit case where the court should have found that the accident and negligence are proved. Therefore the finding regarding negligence is vacated. 2. So far as the compensation is concerned, it is submitted that the claimant had sustained tenderness on the right shoulder, upper arm, right lips and laceration on both knees. He was admitted in the hospital on 22.7.1999 and discharged on 1.8.1999. It is also submitted that he had expended a sum of Rs.2,682/- towards medical expenses. So, taking into consideration these aspects, I am inclined to grant compensation as follows: For medical expenses Rs.3,000/- is allowed. For extra nourishment, by stander and transport expenses Rs.2,000/- is allowed. A sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering and a sum of Rs.1,000/- is allowed for actual loss of earning for a month. Thus the claimant will be entitled to a MACA 1941/2005 -:3:- compensation of Rs.11,000/-. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.11,000/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-