IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 106 of 2005(A) ----------------------- OPMV.588/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 IN OPMV ---------------------------------------- 1. ITTIYACHAN, KOMBARAKKARAN HOUSE, VARAKKARA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. ANNAM @ AMMINI, W/O.ITIYACHAN, DO.DO. 3. BIJOY, S/O.ITTIYACHAN, DO.DO. 4. BILLIJIN @ BINDU, D/O.ITTIYACHAN, DO.DO. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OPMV ---------------------------------- 1. V.K.ABOOBACKER, S/O.KUNJIMOHAMMED, VAKAYIL HOUSE, PERUMPILAVU P.O., KADAVALUR, THRISSUR. 2. P.D.JOSE, PINDIYAN HOUSE, VARANDARAPPILLY, PALLIKUNNU. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., KUNNAMKULAM. ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.106 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J. The original claimant before the Tribunal died during pendency of the claim petition and additional claimants 2 to 5 were impleaded. They are in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. The accident as alleged by the original claimant occurred on 24.10.1996 when a lorry hit against the motorcycle on which he was riding. The original claimant sustained fracture of femur, fracture of metacarpal and little finger on right hand along with other injuries. The Tribunal found that there is contributory negligence on the part of the original claimant in causing the accident and apportioned the negligence between the first claimant and the driver of the lorry as 50% each. The Tribunal computed a total compensation of Rs.1,32,566/-, but awarded 50% of the said amount as payable to the additional claimants. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and 2 Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent-Insurance Company. The challenge against the award is mainly on the aspect of finding of contributory negligence. On evaluating the evidence we find that there was no Police case registered in respect of the accident for a period of about one year. The first information was registered only after one year, that too on the basis of a private complaint filed by the original claimant. There is no explanation forthcoming for the inordinate delay caused in intimating the Police. Further, on a perusal of Ext.A9 Accident register-cum-Wound certificate it is revealed that the history and alleged cause of the injury is written as "RTA at Amballur at 1.30 a.m." Further it is noticed that there is a correction in the date of admission in the wound certificate, which was originally written as 24.9.1996 and corrected as 24.10.1996. The Tribunal found that the Scene Mahazar prepared by the Police after a period of one year cannot be relied upon. The claimants have not adduced any evidence to substantiate negligence on the part of the lorry driver apart from records pertaining to the Police case produced, which was found to be not reliable. However, the Tribunal held that drivers of both the vehicles are negligent in causing the accident and apportioned the negligence at 50% : 50%. We do not find any ground to interfere with 3 the findings of the Tribunal on the aspect of contributory negligence. 3. Counsel for the appellants contended that the amount awarded under various heads are unrealistic and inadequate. On an anxious scanning of the impugned award, we realise that reasonable amounts of compensation has already been awarded under different heads and no enhancement is called for. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants further contended that the rate of interest at 6% awarded by the Tribunal is unreasonable and inadequate. We are persuaded to increase the rate of interest from 6% to 7.5%. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the rate of interest allowed by the Tribunal on the amount of compensation payable to the appellants from 6% to 7.5% p.a., for the period mentioned in the award. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms