IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 MACA.No. 2502 of 2009() -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/03/2009 IN OP(MV). 117/2004 IN OP(MV).118/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ ASHOKAN.P.K., S/O. KARUPPAN PARAYAM VALAPPIL HOUSE AYROOR.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.AYPE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- VARGHESE, CHENNEKKADAN HOUSE, CHERUKADAPPURAM, NORTH KUTHIYATHODE.P.O. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.2502 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in OP(MV)No.118/2004. The claimant, a 63 year old man, sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.20,700/= with 7% interest and ordered to be paid by the appellant herein. It is against that decision, the respondent in the claim petition has come up in appeal. 2. Heard. I had the opportunity to deal with the connected appeal - M.A.C.A.No.38/2010 which was preferred against OP(MV)No.117/2004. The petitioner therein is the wife of the claimant in OP(MV)No.118/2004. The accident had taken place while crossing the road. After consideration of the materials, I held that the accident had taken place in a road which was having a width of 5.6 mtrs and it had taken place 3.4 mtrs east of the western tar end. The correct side of the car was western side, but the scene of occurrence shows slight transgression. I also found that : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.2502 OF 2009 the accident had taken place in a busy road and there was responsibility for the driver and therefore apportioned the negligence in that case at 80% on the driver and 20% on the pedestrian. The same view has to be followed in this case. Therefore, I hold that the claimant will be entitled to 80% of the compensation refixed. 3. Now regarding the quantum. I feel, the Tribunal has been little liberal in the matter. The injury sustained are abrasion of the right knee and right elbow and contusion on the hip. Tribunal has also held that there was a fracture of the second rib. He was treated as an inpatient from 16.7.2003 to 21.7.2003. So, I recalculate the compensation as follows: 4. He was an inpatient in a hospital for 5 days for smaller injuries. I fix the compensation for pain and sufferings at Rs.6,000/=, I grant Rs.2,000/= towards actual loss of earnings and Rs.2,000/= towards treatment expenses and Rs.3,000/= is awarded towards loss of amenities making it Rs.13,000/=. When 20% is deducted for the contributory negligence, it will come to Rs.2,600/=. Thus : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.2502 OF 2009 the total amount would be Rs.10,400/=. 5. In the result, MACA is partly allowed and the award of the Claims Tribunal is modified and the claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs.10,400/= with 7% interest on the said amount from 20.2.2004 till realisation. The respondent is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of 90 days from today. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.2502 OF 2009