IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 811 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.1458/1990 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANTS:RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. G.SASIDHARAN NAIR, S/O. K.G.PILLAI, SASIBHAVAN, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (DRIVER OF AMBASSADOR CAR NO.KBT-7870). 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, 572, MONT FORT HOUSE, VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM.(OWNER OF THE VEHICLE) BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SCGSC RESPONDENT: APPLICANT: ------------------------------------------ ANUP SEKHAR, D-14, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN - R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NOS.914/2006, 530/2007 & I.A.2993/2007 DISMISSED 27/06/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.C. NO. 811 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in OP(MV) 1458/90. The claimant sustained injuries in a bike accident and the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.36,150/- and the Tribunal also found that the claimant has contributed 25% to the accident. It is against that the Government has come up in appeal. 2. I had perused the award. It can be seen that the claimant was returning from his Engineering College where he was studying and when it reached the place of accident it hit on a car resulting in injuries to him. According to him when he was proceeding form north to south and when he reached at the place of occurrence a car driven by the first appellant came from the opposite direction took a sudden turn to the right as a result of which the bike happened to hit against the MACA 811 OF 2006 -2- car. PW1 is the claimant and PW2 is the Doctor who would depose that the claimant was proceeding ahead of him and he had seen the accident. It is also seen from the scene mahazar that the accident had taken place 3.32 meters west from the eastern tarred end in a road which was having a width of 15 metres. The Tribunal held that if the petitioner namely the claimant had acted as a prudent man he could have averted the accident and therefore apportioned the negligence at 75% on the appellant and 25% on the claimant. It has to be seen that the road was having a width of 15 metres at the place of accident. There was a straight vision for the road. If the claimant, boy, had come at a reasonable speed certainly he could have averted the accident. So also the appellant could have averted the accident if he wants to turn by showing a correct signal and slowing down the vehicle. So this is a case where both of them would have bestowed better attention and the car driver being a driver of a heavy vehicle owed more care and especially when he was also to take a turn. Therefore the apportionment of negligence of the drivers at 75% on the MACA 811 OF 2006 -3- appellant and 25% on the motorcyclist does not deserve any interference. 3. Now the question of compensation. The petitioner had sustained a fracture on left shoulder, bleeding from nose and abrasion on hands and legs. There is a disability certificate showing the disability at 4%. I feel that the Tribunal has been unduly exorbitant in granting compensation. For damages to clothing it gave a sum of Rs.2,000, for extra nourishment, it gave a sum of Rs.2,000/-, for pain and sufferings, Rs.20,000/- for permanent disability and loss of amenities another Rs.20,000/-. When the claimant's documents itself shows that he had only sustained 4% disability, fixing the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum even though it was not available at that point of time, the annual loss of earnings at 4% will be Rs.600/- which when multiplied by a proper multiplier of 17 would be Rs.10,200/-. I do not want to disturb the finding on loss of amenities of Rs.5,000/-. Damage to clothing and extra nourishment has to be brought down to Rs.500/- each as well as compensation MACA 811 OF 2006 -4- for pain and sufferings Rs.10,000/-. Thus the total compensation would come to Rs.22,200/- out of which the claimant has contributed 25% for this negligence and when it is deducted it would come to Rs.19,650/-. In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs.19,650/- with 12% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation with a cost of Rs.300/- as ordered by the Tribunal. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- MACA 811 OF 2006 -5- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. No. 811 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 27th June, 2008.