IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 455 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.1038/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ----------------------- M.VASANTHAKUMARI AMMA, W/O. V.K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT KRISHNAPADAM, KOTTAPPALLY AMSOM, VALLIAD DESOM, P.O.VALLIAD, VIA, VILLIAPPALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN-673 542. BY ADV. SRI.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY SRI.K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN SMT.SATHYA SHREEPRIYA RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. K.K.AMMAD, S/O.ABDULLA, RESIDING AT KINATTUMKANDY VEEDU, KUTTIYADI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 508, (R.C.OWNER OF THE LORRY KL-11-E-540). 2. PAVITHRAN, S/O.KELAPPAN, RESIDING AT PALLATHIL HOUSE, KAYAKKODI AMSOM, DEVARKOVIL DESOM, P.O.KAYAKKODI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 519, (DRIVER D.L.NO.1507/92, BADGE NO.832/96). 3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, EAST NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE (INSURER) POLICY NO.760603/31/96/71845, CERTIFICATE NO. 482/00/00. VALID FROM 05-02-96 TO 04-02-97. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN FOR R3 SRI.RAJIT FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.455 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The appellant preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadakara claiming a total sum of Rs. 152,594/- as compensation for the alleged loss sustained to the building, furniture and medicine kept in her business premises because of a motor accident. 2. According to the appellant/claimant a mini lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-11- E- 540 owned by respondent No.1 and driven by respondent No.2 rammed into the building at a very high speed and caused the damage. Appellant contended that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 . Since the vehicle was validly insured with respondent No.3 at the time of the accident, all the respondents were liable to pay the compensation according to the appellant. 3. Allegation of rashness and negligence was denied by MACA.No.455/05 Page numbers respondents 1 and 2 in their written statement. They also contended that the amount claimed by way of damages was highly excessive and exorbitant. 4. The Insurance Company in its written statement admitted that the vehicle involved in the accident was covered by a valid insurance policy. However, negligence on the part of the driver was denied and entitlement of the claimant to receive compensation was seriously disputed. 5. PW1, a surveyor was examined on the side of the appellant and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on his side. Though no oral evidence was adduced by the respondents, Ext.B1, copy of the policy certificate was produced. 6. The Tribunal after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient material to show that the appellant had sustained damages to the extent claimed by her in the petition. As regards the report submitted by PW1, surveyor, it was noticed by the Tribunal that the surveyor had prepared the said report on the basis of the materials furnished before MACA.No.455/05 Page numbers him. After perusing Ext.A3 survey report and after considering the oral testimony of PW1, the Tribunal found that many of the observations made by the Surveyor could not be accepted in the absence of any corroborative material. 7. It may at once be noticed that the appellant had not bothered to take out a commission to show as to what was the extent of damage caused to the building. There was not even a whisper as regards the items of medicines which were lost in the accident. According to the appellant, she was the authorised Stockist of the products of Nagarjuna Ayurveda Pharmacy. Therefore, it would not have been difficult for her to produce records to show the quantity of medicines which were allegedly destroyed in the accident. Further, even though the appellant alleged that some items of furniture were damaged, no evidence was adduced by her in this regard. Similarly, there was no record to show what actually was the damage caused to the building. Nevertheless, the Tribunal, after considering the report of the Surveyor and also the photographs produced by the appellant ventured into making an assessment of the loss sustained by the MACA.No.455/05 Page numbers appellant. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- was awarded with 6% interest thereon from the date of petition till date of realisation. A sum of Rs.750/- as cost was also awarded. 8. Having carefully perused the entire materials available on record and having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.455/05 Page numbers