IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 MACA.No. 379 of 2006(B) ----------------------------- OPMV.126/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): /PETITIONER ---------------------------------- RAVI, S/O.KARAPPAN, AGED 36, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, CHARUVATHUR, KODAKARA, THRISUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. C.SELVARANI, W/O.CHANDRASEKHAR, 1/59 F, PUDHUVALAVU, SANKARI T.K., SELAM DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. *DELETED. 2. R.SENTHIL KUMAR, 108 KUNJUPALIKADU, MORUR P.O., SANKARI T.K., SELAM DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. *DELETED. 3. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SANKARI BRANCH, SELAM, BHAVANI MAIN ROAD, OPP: BUSSTAND. * R1 AND R2 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 28.8.08 IN I.A.2229/08. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 379 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV)126/00. The claimant, an auto driver by profession sustained injuries in a road accident. The Tribunal found that he has contributed to the accident in equal half, fixing the compensation at Rs.7,118/- and awarded him a compensation of Rs.3,559/-. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. The first question canvassed before me is regarding the finding on the contributory negligence. I had perused the award. A perusal of the award would reveal that the accident took place by a hit from behind. The reason attributed is that the driver of the lorry applied sudden break. Under the Motor Vehicles Rules a person is expected to keep a distance of 10 metres from the on going vehicle. If the driver of the auto rickshaw has come up at a reasonable M.A.C.A. 379 OF 2006 -:2:- speed and even if the lorry is stopped suddenly if he had kept the distance of 10 metres he could have averted the accident. Therefore one cannot find fault with the Tribunal when it apportioned the negligence at 50%. 3. The next question is regarding the quantum. A perusal of paragraph 14 of the award would reveal that the claimant had sustained an injury, a transverse laceration exposing bone starting at midline, multiple linear skin deep lacerations of the chest wall and head injury. He was treated in the hospital as an inpatient for seven days. He was an auto driver by profession. There is nothing wrong in fixing his income at Rs.2,500/-. Therefore I enhance the compensation for loss of earnings by Rs.1,000/-. 4. Towards pain and sufferings the factum of sustainment of injury which exposed the bone and hospitalisation of seven days with linear abrasions on the chest wall etc. would have made him suffer more and therefore I enhance that compensation by Rs.1,500/-. Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment I increase it by M.A.C.A. 379 OF 2006 -:3:- Rs.1,000/- thereby entitling the claimant to get an additional compensation of Rs.3,500/-. When the contributory negligence is deducted he will be entitled to get only Rs.1,750/-. In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.1,750/- with 6% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the 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/-