IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 215 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.1791/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- BIJU, S/O. DEVASSIA, NELLIKKATTIL HOUSE, PINDIMANA P.O.,KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) SRI.JEFRIN MANUEL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------- 1. MEHEROOB, S/O. MUHAMMAD, VATTAKUDY HOUSE, ELAMBRA, ERAMALLOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. ELIACHEN, S/O. PEETER, VETTIKATTIL HOUSE, PANGANAPPILLY. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ELENGICAL PLAZA, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SMT.ANEY PAUL - R1 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU - R1 SRI.S.MAMMU - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 215 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV) 1791/00. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident. He was riding a motor bike from north to south and at that time another motor bike came from the opposite direction and a collision took place. The correct side of the appellant was eastern side and that of the opposite vehicle was western side. The tribunal after perusing scene mahazar etc. had dismissed the case. I feel the said approach is erroneous. 2. A perusal of the award would reveal that the road is having a width of 3.54 mts. at the place of accident and the accident had taken place at a distance of 1.75 mt. east of the western end of the road which means that the accident had taken place almost on the middle portion of the road. The discussion of the Tribunal would also show that the M.A.C.A. 215 OF 2006 -:2:- police has registered cases against both. The scene mahazar would further reveal that there is visibility of road for a distance of 50 mts. So it is very clear that both the riders of the bike had not adverted proper care and attention which were expected of them and that had resulted in the accident. One cannot show that one was more negligent or the other was not negligent at all. Being a head on collision and as the accident had taken place at the middle of the road I find that both the riders, namely, claimant as well as the rider of the other bike are equally negligent thereby I apportion the negligence at 50% each. 3. The next question is regarding the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel had brought to my attention that the claimant had sustained a lacerated injury on the eye-lid and a wound on the right cheek. He was inpatient in the hospital for seven days from 8.5.2000 to 15.5.00 and he had also produced medical bills worth Rs.2,650/- which is marked as Ext.A7. The injuries are of a minor nature but considering the fact that he had spent M.A.C.A. 215 OF 2006 -:3:- Rs.2,650/- for treatment and was an inpatient in the hospital for seven days I fix the compensation at Rs.6,000/- deducting 50% for the contributory negligence, award a sum of Rs.3,000/-. Therefore the MACA is allowed and the claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs.3,000/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the 3rd respondent, insurance company is directed to deposit the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Being an old case and as the amount involved is small, the entire amount may be released in favour of the claimant. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-