IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 MACA.No. 1862 of 2006(B) ----------------------- OPMV.2128/2001 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor .................... APPELLANT(S):/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- SEBY, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, PULICKAL HOUSE, MOONAMPARAMBU KARA, PADUVAPURAM P.O., KARUKUTTY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- 1. BABU, S/O. ALEMMA VARKEY, AREECKAL HOUSE, KARUKUTTY P.O., KARUKUTTY VILLAGE. 2. JOBY JOSE, S/O. JOSE, INCHIPARAMBAN HOUSE, MOONAMPARAMBU KARA, KARUKUTTY P.O., KARUKUTTY VILLAGE. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PATTAMAA BUILDINGS, R.S. ROAD, ALUVA. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1862 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P.(MV)2128/01. The claimant is alleged to have sustained injuries in a road accident by overturning of an auto rickshaw in which he was travelling and thereby he had sustained injuries. The Tribunal found that the case put forwarded by him is not true and therefore dismissed the claim petition. It is against that decision the appeal is preferred. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. Learned counsel had made available before me for perusal all the concerned documents relating to the accident. It is true that in the top of the wound certificate the date and hour of examination is as 11 p.m. on 14.3.2001. It can again be seen in the bottom part of the same wound certificate that the date of admission is on 15.5.2001 and the date of discharge is 19.5.2001. The M.A.C.A. 1862 OF 2006 -:2:- same hospital authorities had given a discharge summary wherein the admission date is shown as 15.5.2001(1 a.m.) and discharged on 19.5.2001. The Tribunal went against the claimant because of the difference in dates. It is stated that in the wound certificate date shown is as 14.3.2001 whereas the claimant alleges that the accident had taken place on 14.5.2001 and further it held that there was no damages to the auto rickshaw and further that the history of the accident is given as a fall from auto rickshaw. So far as the date is concerned it is only a mistake committed by the K.G. Hospital, Angamaly. It can be seen from the other records and even found from the bottom of the very wound certificate. The police constable had gone to the hospital wherein the claimant has cogently stated that there was an overturning of the auto rickshaw on 14.5.2001 at 11 p.m. When the accident had taken place at 11 p.m. and the patient will be brought to the hospital necessarily after examining him in the causality and when he is admitted it may cross midnight and that is why the time of admission is M.A.C.A. 1862 OF 2006 -:3:- shown as 1 a.m. on 15.5.2001. I do not find anything suspicious in these records and I am convinced that the accident had taken place on 14.5.2001 at 11 p.m. as suggested by the claimant. The claimant was only a passenger in an auto rickshaw. The cause of accident is on account of the overturning of the auto rickshaw. Just because the auto rickshaw had not sustained any damages one cannot hold that it is a false case. The police has investigated the case and they have filed a charge sheet as well and the document produced by him would show that the cause of his injury was only on account of the fact that an auto rickshaw was involved. Irrespective of the question whether the auto rickshaw overturned or he fell from the auto rickshaw, the accident had taken place only on account of the use of a motor vehicle of which the claimant was only a passenger and therefore one cannot attribute negligence on him. Therefore from these discussions I hold that the claimant has succeeded in proving that the accident had taken place on account of the negligent driving of the auto M.A.C.A. 1862 OF 2006 -:4:- rickshaw driver. 3. Now turning to the quantum, I am proceeding to decide the matter with the available materials. The claimant was 32 year old man and he was a plumbing worker. He had sustained a contusion on the forehead as 5 x 6 cm. A nasal wound on right side of 3 x 3 c.m. There was loss of one tooth and there was mobility of about two teeth. X-ray revealed that there was no fracture. He was admitted on 15.5.2001 and discharged on 19.5.2001 and at the time of his discharge his condition was good. With these materials I proceed to fix the compensation. 4. Towards bystanders expenses for four days I award Rs.400/-. Towards extra nourishment and transport expenses at the rate of Rs.300/- I grant Rs.600/-. Towards medical expenses especially under the circumstances that he was treated in a private hospital and was an inpatient for about a period of 5 days, I grant a sum of Rs.1,000/-. I grant a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.3,000/- is awarded for the loss of one tooth and another M.A.C.A. 1862 OF 2006 -:5:- Rs.2,000/- is awarded for the injury caused to the tooth such as mobility etc. and Rs.1,000/- is awarded towards compensation for loss of amenities thereby entitling the claimant to have a compensation of Rs.12,000/-. In the result the MACA is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.12,000/- with 7.5% interest on the said from the date of petition till realisation and the respondent, 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/-