IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 M.A.C.A. No. 196 of 2004() ---------------------- O.P.M.V.50/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM ST.1683/1996 of J.M.F.C.-I,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN THE TRIBUNAL: ------------------------------------- SUDHEER M. NAIR, SON OF MOHANAN NAIR, T.C.28/280, LEKSHMI NILAYAM, OTTUKAL STREET, KAITHAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: APPLICANT IN THE TRIBUNAL: --------------------------------------- VISHNU (MINOR), SON OF RAVIKUMAR, SYAMALAYAM, T.C.29/349-1, THENGAPPURA MUDUKKU, PALKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY HIS GUARDIAN RAVIKUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A NO.477/2004 IN M.A.C.A NO.196/2004 DISMISSED 29/5/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SCM M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 196 OF 2004 --------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, in OP(MV) 50/98. The respondent is the appellant before this court. It is the case of the respondent/applicant, who is a minor, represented by his father, that he had sustained injuries on account of a hit by the bike driven by the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant would contend that his bike has never hit the boy. According to him, an autorickshaw was proceeding in front of his motor bike and it was that vehicle which hit the boy and as a neighbour he had stopped the bike there and he has nothing to do with the accident. The oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and RW1 and RW2 perused. PW1, the father of the child, had not seen the accident and therefore there is no direct knowledge as far as he is concerned regarding the accident. The court below did not accept the evidence of PW2 as unacceptable. PW3 is the grandmother who had accompanied the child at the time of accident. 2. I had gone through the deposition of PW3. PW3 has stated that while she was taking back the child from the school and when the child was crossing, the bike has hit and that has resulted in the accident. In MACA No.196/04 2 cross-examination she had specifically denied the suggestion that it was the autorickshaw that hit the child. A total reading of the evidence of PW3, who is 85 years old, inspires confidence in me too to believe that at the belated age she need not utter a falsehood like this. I had read the cross- examination again and again to find out whether it is safe to rely upon her evidence. Her evidence had not been shaken at all and therefore it is not possible for me to disbelieve her version. Then the counter evidence is in the form of RW1 and RW2. RW1 necessarily is an interested witness and RW2 is a friend of him. The court below found that the evidence of RW2 is intrinsically not reliable or acceptable and therefore did not accept the same. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant highlighted before me that in the wound certificate originally the cause of accident is mentioned as hit by the autorickshaw which has been subsequently corrected as a motor bike. Admittedly, the evidence before the court would show that the said information was given by the mother of the child and not the grand mother. The mother was not available in the scene of occurrence and one has to understand the anxiety undergone by a mother whose child is involved in an accident and who had bleeding from the ear and a cerebral concussion. Therefore I do not consider it as a fatal mistake to throw out the claim. 4. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, I agree with the finding of the Tribunal and held that the accident took place MACA No.196/04 3 on account of the bike driven by the appellant. So far as compensation is concerned, the boy was in the hospital for a period of 5 or 6 days and he had bleeding from the ear and a cerebral concussion. He was also treated in the Medical college Hospital as an out patient for 7 days and there was some abnormality in the voice. On materials available the court below granted Rs.7,000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs.1,000/- for treatment expenses, Rs.4,000/- for loss of amenities and some other amount for transport charges damage of clothing etc. It does not seem to be on the higher side. Therefore I do not want to disturb the finding of the Tribunal. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps