IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 459 of 2007(D) ----------------------------- OPMV.1972/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER. --------------------------------- KUNJAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, VELLUVAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARIAPADY, U.C.COLLEGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.VEERAVUNNY SRI.K.Y.TOMY SRI.P.B.SUNEER SRI.K.A.HARIS SRI.K.S.ARUN BABU RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS. ----------------------------------- 1. M.P.MUHAMMED SIYED, S/O.K.M.MOITHEEN, MARATHUKUDI HOUSE, EDATHALA NORTH P.O., ALUVA. 2. ABDUL SHAGEER, S/O.MOHAMMED ALI, CHARLIYIL HOUSE, EDATHALA, N.A.D. P.O., ALUVA. 3. M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., P.B.NO.24, MULLAPPILLY BUILDINGS, A.M.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR-683542. BY ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 459 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008. 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)1972/02. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.13,780/-. Dissatisfied with the same the claimant has come up in appeal. Learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the Tribunal had erred in attributing 50% negligence on the claimant and also the rejection of the salary certificate by the Tribunal. So far as the contributory negligence aspect is concerned it has been stated that the claimant did not set the law in motion immediately after the accident and a private complaint was filed and a reference is made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and scene mahazar had been prepared three months after the date of the accident. Similarly, it is also proved that the claimant did not even have a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. I am conscious of the fact that mere absence of a M.A.C.A.459 OF 2007 -:2:- driving licence shall not ipso facto lead to a conclusion that a person who was driving the vehicle was negligent. But it is also a factor that has also to be taken into consideration. Inert attitude of the claimant to put the law in motion coupled with the absence of driving licence indicates that all is not well and further he did not even mount the box to give any evidence in support of his contentions. So I do not propose to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on the question of contributory negligence. The next question is regarding the quantum of compensation. The main grievance projected by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimant was employed in M/s G.T.N. Textiles and he had produced Ext.A10 certificate which would indicate that he was working there for a salary of Rs.4,471.74. Ext.A10 would reveal that he was on leave from 23.6.02 to 23.9.02 and the salary which he is entitled to during the above said period was Rs.4,471.74. Accepting that when the compensation is calculated for loss of earnings it would come to Rs.13,200/- at the rate of M.A.C.A.459 OF 2007 -:3:- Rs.4,400/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,000/-. So the additional compensation would be Rs.7,200/-. If 50% is deducted for contributory negligence it will come to Rs.3,600/-. On all other heads the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensations. Therefore, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.3,600/- with 7% 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/-