IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 2619 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.419/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA, WAYANAD .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 -------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPT. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIST. INSURANCE OFFICE, KALPETTA, (INSURER OF KL. 01-F/1019 JEEP POLICY NO. DIO/WYD/PC/2160/2002) BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT --------------- 1. K. ABDUREHIMAN, S/O. AYAMUTTY, KARATT HOUSE, RESIDING AT PERINGODA LABOUR LANE, POZHUTHANA P.O., WAYANAD DIST, 2. T.P. SANTHOSH, S/O. T.R. PRAKASHAN, THARAYIL HOUSE, VYTHIRI P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, (DIRVER OF KL-01F/ 1019 JEEP). ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A.2619 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: FEBRUARY 10, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. The challenge in this appeal by respondents 2 and 3, the State, in OP(MV) 419/2004 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, Wayanad, is to the judgment and award of the Tribunal granting a compensation of Rs.5,00,250/- to the respondent/claimant for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident. 2. The facts in brief are these:- On June 4, 2003 at about 12°' clock in the noon, the respondent/claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL 12A/9233 along Pozhuthana to Vythiri road and when he reached near Vahida Estate, a jeep bearing registration No.KL 01F/1019 belonging to the 2nd respondent, the Secretary, Board of Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram, and driven by the 1st respondent, came at a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant. The claimant sustained very serious injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending jeep by the 1st respondent. The claimant has claimed a compensation of Rs.9 lakhs. 3. The 1st respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle, filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the M.A.C.A.2619 of 2009 2 negligence on the part of the claimant. Appellants who are respondents Nos.2 and 3 in the claim petition filed a joint written statement admitting the policy. On the side of the claimant PW.1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A11 series and Exts.X1 and X1(a) and Ext.C1 were marked. No evidence was adduced by the respondents in the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and granted a compensation of Rs.5,00,250/-. Respondents 2 and 3 in the OP have now come up in appeal challenging the said award. 5. Heard learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants. 6. The main contention raised by the appellants is that the owner, driver and insurer of the motorcycle involved in the accident were not made parties in the OP and that therefore the OP is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the compensation awarded is excessive. 7. We find no substance in the contentions raised by the Government Pleader appearing for the appellants. The claimant when examined as PW.1 before the Tribunal has categorically stated M.A.C.A.2619 of 2009 3 that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending jeep. His evidence was not shaken in cross- examination. Further, no evidence was adduced on the side of the appellants before the Tribunal to show that there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent or to show that there was any negligence on the part of the claimant. Therefore the Tribunal is perfectly justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the 1st respondent in the O.P. That being so, the driver, owner and insurer of the motorcycle are not necessary parties in the OP. It follows that the OP is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 8. Regarding the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has awarded compensation as follows:- Loss of earning - Rs.7,000/- transportation - 1,000 extra nourishment - 1,000 damage to clothing - 250 bystander's expenses - 1,000 medical bills - 2,39,810 disability - 2,40,000 pain and suffering - 10,000 9. Regarding the disability caused, Ext.C1 certificate of disability M.A.C.A.2619 of 2009 4 shows the percentage of disability as 50% and the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.2500/-. Adopting a multiplier of 16 , the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- for his disability. From the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. We find no reason to interfere with the same. That being so, we find no ground to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and the appeal has to be dismissed. In the result we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-