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. 388 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.373/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- M.V.VARKEY, S/O. VARKEY, MANNARAKUDIYIL HOUSE, K.S.E.B.QUARTERS, VELLATHOOVAL P.O. BY ADV. SRI.N.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT ----------------------- VISWANATHA PILLAI, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, SUB ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. KATHIPPARA, VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE. BY 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. 388 OF 2005 --------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, in OP(MV) 373/03. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation with 6% interest. It is against that decision, the appeal is preferred by the claimant. 2. Though notice was served, the respondent did not enter appearance. The contention of the respondent was that he was not the owner cum driver of the vehicle. It is the case of the claimant that while travelling in a car owned and driven by the respondent the vehicle fell into a gutter as a result of which he sustained fracture of the transverse process of LI to LIV of the spine with some minor injuries. The Tribunal found that the respondent is the owner cum driver in the light of the police documents produced and also came to the conclusion that the vehicle was not insured. Except the wound certificate, nothing else was produced to show the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. The claimant also did not mount the box MACA N0.388/05 2 to give any evidence. So taking into consideration the materials available the Tribunal had awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation. There is nothing to show what was the real suffering undergone by the claimant or what is the period of hospitalisation. Therefore it has to be held that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation on the basis of the materials placed before it, which does not call for any interference. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA N0.388/05 3