IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 MACA.No. 2333 of 2007 -------------------------------- O.P(MV).NO.375/2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA. .................... APPELLANT/FIRST RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & SECOND RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AJAYKUMAR, S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN, RESIDING AT JYOTHIS HOUSE, KUZHALMANNAM VILLAGE, ALATHOOR TALUK, PALAKKADU DISTRICT. 2. T.V. MURALEEDHARAN, MURALI SADANAM, KALLORKADU, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.RESHMI JACOB, SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.2333 OF 2007 and C.M.Appl.No.2447 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated 9th January, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . This appeal is filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, owner of the bus which was involved in the accident in which first respondent sustained very serious injuries. After considering the evidence, Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle owned by the appellant. The Tribunal considered Ext.A1 F.I.R., Ext.A2 scene mahazar, AMVI's report, Ext.A17 final report as well as the evidence adduced by RW1 for finding out negligence. According to the appellant, the accident occurred while negotiating a curve and it can be accidental. Ext.A3 AMVI's report shows that the road has a width of 7.60 metres. The road margin on the northern side has a width of 3 metres and the southern road margin has a width of 40 cm. Scene of occurrence was 2.70 metres north of the southern tar end and lie of the road is east-west. That shows that the claimant was riding his motor cycle in the correct side and the bus transgressed to a width of 1.10 metres. We are of the opinion that no interference is needed in the findings of the Tribunal. As a result of the accident claimant was paralysed. 60% disability was assessed by the Medical Board. The contention of the claimant was that he was a medical representative of a reputed company, viz., Abbott India Ltd. and MACA.2333/2007 2 because of the accident, as far as he is concerned, there was 100% disability. He was unable to get any employment. Even though company allowed him to report duty, he was unable to join because he was paralysed and he became jobless. According to him, Tribunal ought to have granted compensation for 100% disability, but, Tribunal only granted compensation for 60% disability as certified by the Medical Board. According to the claimant, Rs.7,954/= was his monthly income and also produced Ext.A14 pay slip issued from the company. Pay slip is issued in the ordinary course and it cannot be rejected. But, Tribunal has taken Rs.6,000/= as the monthly income and calculated the compensation. We see no ground to interfere with the award as only just and reasonable compensation was awarded. Even otherwise, there is no ground for condoning the long delay of 228 days in filing the appeal. It is submitted that this appeal was filed only after execution petition was filed and order of attachment was passed and there is no satisfactory reason for condoning the delay. Therefore, both delay condonation petition and appeal are dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks