IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 227 of 2005() ---------------------- MVOP.300/1998 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------- 1. MRS.P.A. SAROJINI, W/O. PANANGATTIL RAMAN, D/O. PANAVALAPPIL AYYAPPAN, VELLANI DESOM, KARALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. MRS. THANKAMANI P.A., W/O. NEDUMPILLY PRABHAKARAN, D/O. PANAVALAPPIL AYYAPPAN, VELLANI DESOM, KARALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. MR. P.A. DHARMARAJAN, S/O PANAVALAPPIL AYYAPPAN, VELLANI DESOM, KARALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 4. MR. P.A. RAGHUNANDHANAN, S/O. PANAVALAPPIL AYYAPPAN, VELLANI DESOM, KARALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 5. THANKAMANI, W/O. LATE PANAVALAPPIL CHANDRAN, VELLANI DESOM, KARALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 6. JAYAN, S/O. LATE PANAVALAPPIL CHANDRAN, VELLANI DESOM, KARALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 7. JYOTHI PRAKASH, S/O. LATE PANAVALAPPIL CHANDRAN, VELLANI DESOM, KARALAM VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.V. CHANDRAN, S/O. MACHINGAL VALLON, KARALAM LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, KARALAM VILLAGE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT (OWNER) 2. MR.T.O. BIJOY, S/O. THEKKANATH JOSE, KARALAM DESOM VILLAGE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT (DRIVER). 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, NORTH NADA, KODUNGALLUR. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) FOR R2 SRI.PRASANTH M.P FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.227 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The appellants have challenged the order of the MACT rejecting the claim petition filed by them on the ground that accident is not proved. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellants, Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent-Insurance Company and counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. The case of the appellants is hat the deceased, an 86 year old person was knocked down by an Avanti two wheeler belonging to the first respondent while being driven by the second respondent. Even though the victim died of head injuries after 49 days of hospitalisation, the claim of motor accident was disbelieved by the MACT for the reason that the person who took the injured to the hospital stated that the accident was caused by a cycle. Further, there was a delay of 7 days in launching the FIR. Counsel for the appellants relied on statement of the Doctor who says that delay in giving intimation was on account of his mistake. The contention of counsel for the Insurance Company is that the Doctor was not bound to report accident because it was stated to be caused 2 on account of cycle hitting the injured. In answer to this, counsel for the appellants submitted that sometimes Avanti two wheeler which is a light Moped, is referred to as cycle by the person who took the injured to hospital. Strangely, the second respondent who caused the accident and who is said to have accompanied the victim was not examined and he did not give any statement confirming the accident. In any case we feel rejection of the claim petition is not sustainable for more than one reason. In the first place, accident is admitted and death also appears to be on account of accident. Post Mortem certificate shows that head injury led to the death of the injured who was 86 years old at the time of accident. The only surviving dispute, therefore, is whether accident is caused by the cycle or by the Avanti Moped which was covered by Insurance policy issued by the third respondent. On going through the order, we find that the accident was caused by cycle was also not attempted to be proved by the Insurance Company in as much as no evidence was adduced. Secondly, there is nothing strange in calling a Moped as a cycle also and in common parlance, people refers to Moped also as a cycle. Respondents 1 and 2 also confirmed the accident as one caused by the Moped while the same was being driven by the second respondent. In the circumstances, we feel appellants are entitled to some compensation, even though not to the extent 3 claimed by them. We, therefore, set aside the award, but having regard to the fact that the deceased was 86 years of age at the time of accident, we award a total compensation of rupees fifty thousand which will be shared equally among the five claimants(appellants 5 to 7 together to take only one share along with others). The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest at 7.5% p.a. from date of application till date of deposit. Since the amount involved is very low, we direct the Insurance Company to deposit the cheques in the name of the appellants as above before the MACT without any delay. The appeal is allowed as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms