IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 559 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.1847/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPLT.PTR.IN OPMV,1847/96 MACT.ERNAKULAM. ------------------------------------------------------- P.J.GEORGE, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, PARAMBATHU SEERY HOUSE, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, PADIVATTOM KARA. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): OPMV.1847/96.OF MACT.ERNAKULAM. ---------------------------------------------- 1. MAHABOOB, VATHUKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NR.OLD POLICE STATION, KAKKANAD. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COM LTD., RUKHIYA BHAGH, M.G.ROAD. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COM.LTD., IST FLOOR N.A.ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.A.K.SRINIVASAN & SRI.JIMMY GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.8.2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 559 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. This appeal is filed against dismissal of claim petition filed before the MACT for compensation for the injury sustained by the appellant in a motor accident. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant, and we have gone through the award. It is seen that the claim is on account of collision between two motor bikes and both the riders sustained injuries. While claim was awarded in the case of other motor bike rider, appellant's case was rejected on the ground that accident was caused on account of negligence of the appellant. 2. Counsel for the appellant contended that police case was registered against the first respondent who was riding the other bike involved in the accident along with appellant's bike and therefore it was wrong for the Tribunal to have come to the finding that appellant caused the accident. On going through the award we find that Tribunal heavily relied on the scene mahazar for the conclusion that appellant caused the accident due to his negligence. Tribunal has not however considered the circumstances under which police charged the first 2 respondent as the person causing accident, inspite of occurrence of accident on the northern side of the road which is the wrong side for the appellant. The evidence considered by the Tribunal is only pertaining to the appellant and Tribunal had no occasion to consider the entire evidence in this case. We are unable to uphold the finding of Tribunal pertaining to cause of accident. However, appellant has also not explained the circumstances under which he has gone to the wrong side of the road which led to the accident. In the circumstances, and having regard to the injury sustained by the appellant, we feel appellant is entitled to compensation though not to the extent of the claim. Considering his involvement in the accident, and injuries sustained by him, we award compensation of Rs. 12,000/-. Since the amount is not high the second respondent is directed to release payment to the appellant with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till date of payment. Appeal is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V. K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 3