IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 2128 of 2006 --------------------------------- OPMV.210/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA ......................................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP(MV) --------------------------------------------------- REMADEVI @ REMA, W/O.VENUGOPALAN, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, RESIDING AT POOPPATHY DESOM, POYYA VILLAGE, POOPPATHY P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV) ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.A.SHAJU, S/O.ANTONY, ARAKKATHARA HOUSE, KOMBATHUKADAVU P.O. 2. GEORGE, S/O.MUCHAEL, KAITHATHARA HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM P.O., MALA. 3. MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., IRINJALAKUDA. 4. T.M.MAJEED, S/O.ABUL KHADER, THERUVIL HOUSE, KOTTANELLOOR. ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN FOR R4 SMT.P.A.ANITHA FOR R4 SRI.S.MAMMU FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2128 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV)210/01. The claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in her husband's motorcycle which met with an accident whereby she sustained lacerated wound on the occipital area, contusion on both the knees and complaint of pain all over the body. She was treated as an inpatient in the hospital for 8 days and the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.7,530/- and further held that as her husband had also contributed to the accident and as no compensation is claimed against him, granted only 50% of the said amount. 2. The learned counsel had argued the case on two points namely, (1) on the question of negligence and (2) on the adequacy of compensation. After hearing the counsel for both sides I feel there is nothing to interfere with the award rendered by the Tribunal. A reading of the entire award M.A.C.A. 2128 OF 2006 -:2:- would reveal that the auto rickshaw was going ahead of the bike and it appears it had turned to the right side without any signal and it was at that time the bike which was coming from behind hit on the auto rickshaw. There was an attempt made at the stage of evidence that the auto rickshaw which was coming from behind, over took the motor bike, suddenly turned to the right and that has caused the accident. It is against the pleaded case in the petition. It has to be remembered that when a vehicle is being turned one is expected to give proper signal so also when a vehicle is coming behind it is expected to keep a distance of 10 meters. If that had been kept the accident could have been averted. It is still not known how the accident had taken place on the eastern end whereas the correct side of the vehicle was on the western side. So this is a case where it has to be held that both the riders had not taken adequate care which had resulted in the accident. Therefore I do not propose to interfere with the finding on negligence of 50:50. M.A.C.A. 2128 OF 2006 -:3:- 3. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned though she was in the hospital for 8 days the nature of injuries sustained are not of very serious nature and the medical expenses incurred comes to only Rs.1780/- and regarding the complaint of head injury there was only a wound on the occipital area coupled with some abrasions on the knees. I think the Tribunal has been liberal in granting the compensation most probably on account of the deduction of contributory negligence of her husband. Still, a reasonable amount is awarded as compensation. Therefore the award does not suffer from any infirmity and hence the appeal is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-