IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 666 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.493/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------- P.V.GOPALAN NAMBIAR, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN NAMBIAR, KRISHNAPURAM HOUSE, P.H.QUARTERS, MUNDERI, KALPATTA P.O., VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. SUBEESH, S/O.MANU, LAKSHMI NIVAS, KOTTAVAYAL, PUTHURVAYAL P.O., WAYANAD DIST. (DVR OF KL 12/A 7187 M/C). 2. M.SAJI, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN LMV 28/99, LAKSHMI NIVAS, KOTTAVAYAL, PUTHURVAYAL P.O., WAYANAD DIST., (R.C.OWNER OF KL 12/A 7187 M/C). 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KALPANA SHOPPING COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, KALPATTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, (INSURER OF KL 12/A 7187 M/C) CERTIFICATE NO/ 0195218. ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3 SMT.DEEPA GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 666 of 2005 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Barkath Ali,J. In this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.493/2001 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, Kalpetta challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated September 16, 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs.64,300/- to the claimant for the loss caused to him on account of the injury sustained in a motor accident. 2. The facts in brief are these: The appellant/claimant was aged 64. On August 12, 2001 at about 11.30 am while he was crossing the road near Leo Hospital, Kalpetta, a motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KL-12- A/7187 driven by the 1st respondent came at a high speed and knocked him down. The claimant sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending motor cycle by the 1st respondent. The claimant has claimed M.A.C.A No. 666 of 2005 2 compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. First respondent as the rider, 2nd respondent as the owner and 3rd respondent as the insurer of the offending motor cycle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the rider and owner of the offending motor cycle did not file any written statement. Third respondent, insurer of the offending motor cycle filed a written statement admitting the policy, but contended that there was also negligence on the part of the claimant. 4. The claimant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A10 were marked his side. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.64,300/-. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to negligence on M.A.C.A No. 666 of 2005 3 the part of the 1st respondent, the rider of the offending motor cycle is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arise for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation. 6. The claimant sustained fracture of both bones right leg. Ext.A3 is the copy of the wound certificate. Ext.A8 is the disability certificate which shows that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 12%. Ext.A10 is the copy of the of the treatment certificate issued from the hospital. The Tribunal awarded compensation as follows: Loss of earning - Rs.4,500 Extra nourishment - 2,000 Bystanders expenses - 2,000 Treatment expenses - 35,000 Pain and suffering - 10,000 Disability caused - 10,800 -------------- 64,300 ====== M.A.C.A No. 666 of 2005 4 7. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained (fracture of both bones right leg) and the period of treatment the claimant has undergone (18 days), we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. We find no reason to disturb the same. That being so, the claimant is not entitled to any enhanced compensation. Therefore, we find that the appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE ma M.A.C.A No. 666 of 2005 5 M.A.C.A No. 666 of 2005 6