IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 2110 of 2006() ----------------------------------- OPMV.845/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- NANDISWARAN @ VELUCHAMI, AGED 50, S/O. KITTA, THALIPARAKKALAM, ERUTHEMBATHY VILLAGE, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) MR.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.CHANDRASEKHARAN, S/O. APPU, RESIDING AT MOOTHEDATH HOUSE, ERUMATHALA P.O., CHUNANGAVELI, ALUVA. 2. A.NARAYANAN, S/O. LATE APPU, COYAELMANNAM, PALAKKAD. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., II FLOOR, PERINCHERY BUILDINGS, ROUND NORTH, TRICHUR - 680 061. 4. M.MARIAPPAN, S/O. MADASAMMY, BANUMATHI, AKKAMALAI ESTATE, AKKAMALAI BAZER POST, VALPARA, POLLACHI, COIMBATORE. 5. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUNDARAM BUILDINGS, 25, COIMBATORE ROAD-642 001. R3 BY ADV. MR.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.2110 OF 2006 ............................................. Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in OP(MV)No.845/1998. Appellant is the owner of the motor bike involved in the accident i.e., TN-41B-9800. The Tribunal on exhaustive consideration of the materials arrived at the finding that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the 1st respondent and therefore held R1 and R2 jointly and severally liable. Respondents 3 to 5 were exonerated from the liability. It is against that decision, the driver of the bike has come up in appeal. 2. Few facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that vehicle TN-41B-00 was proceeding from west to east and the Moped was proceeding from the opposite direction. The claimant was a pillion rider in the motor bike. The correct side of the motor bike was the northern side and that of the Moped was the southern side. The road was having a width of 3.65 metres with straight vision on both : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.2110 OF 2006 sides. From the scene mahazer it appears that the accident had taken place on the northern extremity of the road which is absolutely wrong side for the Moped. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant very strongly contends before me that by virtue of the judgment of the criminal court, the appellant has been acquitted and therefore the case has to be found in his favour. I am afraid that such an approach cannot be made in a motor accident case for the reason that the court has to decide the question of civil negligence independently. The learned counsel wanted to project that the motor bike came from a side road and hit on the Moped resulting in injuries. I had meticulously perused the scene mahazer which gives the description of the property in detail both on the southern side as well as on the northern side of the road. It is noted clearly that on both sides there were bushes having a height of 1.5 metres which would necessarily indicate that there was no such pocket road from this side or that side. If the rider of the Moped had come through his correct side, there was no opportunity at all for him to hit the bike. : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.2110 OF 2006 Therefore, the place of occurrence speaks in volume about the negligence of the rider of the Moped. Therefore, I find that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the appellant. The said finding does not call for any interference. 4. Now turning to the quantum. It can be seen that the accident had taken place on 13.9.1997. The claimant had sustained a fracture of the femur. There is nothing to show about any disability that had taken place. He was in the hospital for about 25 days. No documents are forthcoming to prove any disability or further complication in the case. Therefore, the compensation has to be awarded in tune with the injury sustained. An amount of Rs.15,000/= for pain and suffering for an accident of 1997 appears to be on the higher side and therefore, I reduce it by Rs.3,000/=. Similarly in the absence of any disability certificate or any document to show the continuity of treatment it has to be held that the compensation for loss of amenities is also on the higher side and therefore I reduce the amount by Rs.5,000/=. Thus the reduced total compensation would : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.2110 OF 2006 come to Rs.23,550/=. The current rate of interest is only 7.5% and that need be given in this case. 5. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the finding of negligence is upheld and a revised award is passed thereby the claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs.23,550/= with 7.5% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and respondents 1 and 2 severally and jointly liable. If any amount is paid by them, they need only deposit the balance amount. The balance amount will be deposited within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 5 : M.A.C.A.No.2110 OF 2006