IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 MACA.No. 52 of 2009() --------------------- OPMV.203/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): (PETITIONER IN OP(MV) 203/05): ------------------------------------------------------------------------- RAMSING, S/O. RANJITH SINGH, AGED 65, THATTARUPARAMBIL (H), CHEMBANNOOR, ANGAMALY SOUTH P.O., ALUVA TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.V.K.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA). RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV)203/05): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. P.K. KORAH, S/O. KURIAKOSE, PALAKKAPPILLIYIL HOUSE , 2/102, THURUTHI P.O., PERUMBAVOOR (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. TONY AUGUSTINE, S/O. AUGUSTINE, MENACHERY )H), MAROTTICHODU, MATTOOR P.O., KALADY VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SHRIRAM SITE OFFICE, 2A, PRAKASAM ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017. R3 BY ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.52 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010. 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.203/2005. The claimant - a cyclist sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has found him contributorily negligent to a tune of 50% and after deducting the same, granted a compensation of Rs.20,255/=. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that it is the contention of the claimant that while he was peddling his bicycle, a bus came from behind and hit him resulting in injuries. 3. On the other hand, the insurance company would contend that the accident had taken place while the claimant crossed the road. A perusal of the award and the scene mahazer would reveal that the road at the place of accident is having a width of 8 metres. The accident had taken 4.20 metres west of the eastern tar end. So virtually the : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.52 OF 2009 accident had taken place on the middle of the road which would indicate that it had taken place while the cyclist was attempting to cross to the other side. What ever it may be, the bus is a heavy vehicle. It has got strong light. When its driver is able to see the cycle, if it has come at a reasonable speed, he could have averted the accident either by applying sudden break or by swerving the vehicle for the reason that road is having substantial width at the place of the accident. But at the same time it has also to be stated that cyclist should have been careful while abruptly crossing the road and therefore, there is contributorily negligence on him as well. Considering the fact that the driver of the bus is expected to be more vigilant being a driver of the heavy motor cycle, I apportion the negligence at 60% on the bus driver and 40% on the cyclist. 4. The next question is regarding inadequacy of compensation. I find that the Tribunal has been reasonable to grant compensation in all the heads. Even without any further document, it has granted compensation of Rs.8,000/= towards loss of amenities and enjoyment. The only head : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.52 OF 2009 which requires light modification is loss of earnings for 3 months. The Tribunal had only granted at the rate of Rs.2,000/= which I enhance at the rate of Rs.2,500/= making a total compensation under that head as Rs.7,500/= and Rs.1,500/= as additional compensation. Therefore when these are added, the total compensation would come to Rs.42,010/= which is rounded as Rs.42,000/=. The claimant is entitled to 60% of this amount which would come to Rs.25,200/=. 5. Therefore, a revised award is passed whereby the claimant is awarded a total compensation of Rs.25,200/= with 7.5% interest on the said amount from the date of petition till realisation and the respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Any amount already deposited can be adjusted and balance need be deposited. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.52 OF 2009 : 5 : M.A.C.A.NO.52 OF 2009 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.389 OF 2001 ............................................. 8th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T