IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 50 of 2003() --------------------- OPMV.579/1994 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN OP(MV): --------------------------------------- 1. KOCHUDEVASSY, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., MANAVALASSERY, MUKUNDAPURAM. 2. REGINA, W/O. KOCHUDEVASSY, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., MANAVALASSERY, MUKUNDAPURAM. 3. PAUL, S/O. KOCHUDEVASSY, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., MANAVALASSERY, MUKUNDAPURAM. 4. VARGHESE, S/O. KOCHUDEVASSY, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., MANAVALASSERY, MUKUKNDAPURAM. 5. MARY MOL, D/O. KOCHUDEVASSY, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., MANAVALASSERY, MUKUNDAPURAM. 6. JAYCEE MOL, D/O. KOCHUDEVASSY, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., MANAVALASSERY, MUKUNDAPURAM. 7. BIJOY, S/O. KOCHUDEVASSY, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., MANAVALASSERY, MUKUNDAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV): ----------------------------------- 1. M.D.PAUL, S/O. DEVASSY, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, EAST COMBARA, IRINJALAKUDA P.O. 2. PAULSON, CHITTEKKARA HOUSE, THURAVANKADU, PULLOOR P.O. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.50 of 2003 .................................................................... Dated this the 8th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The appeal is filed by legal heirs of the deceased who died in a scooter accident. Challenge is against adequacy of compensation awarded. However, counsel for the Insurance Company pointed out that by virtue of decision in ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. V. SUDAKARAN reported in 2008(2) KLT 936, a pillion rider is not entitled to compensation. Moreover, Insurance Company has raised a contention that the victim was driving the vehicle as against the case of the appellants that victim's brother was driving the scooter at the time of the accident. Strangely, the person who according to the appellants was driving the scooter at the time of accident, did not sustain any injury even though the pillion rider died of injuries. In any case since Insurance Company has not filed appeal against the award, we do not want to decline the benefits granted to the appellants by the MACT. There is no acceptable evidence 2 about the earning of the victim at the time of his death. We, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the compensation awarded by the MACT. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms