IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 484 of 2005(C) ---------------------- OP(MV) NO.482/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KASARAGODE, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------- PREMKUMAR S/O. K.P.THANKAPPAN, PUTHENVILA HOUSE, POOYAPPILLI, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. (NO RELIEFS ARE CLAIMED AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 AND THEY ARE NOT MADE PARTIES IN THIS APPEAL) BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW SRI.TOM THOMAS THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No. 484/2005 ORDER ON I.A. NO.1038 OF 2005 IN M.A.C.A NO.484 OF 2005 DISMISSED SD/- 24/07/2008 M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 484 OF 2005 --------------------- Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, in OP(MV) 482/01. A 34 year old ex-military personnel sustained injuries in a road accident while he was proceeding in his bike which met with an accident by collision with a bus. The motor cyclist was proceeding from west to east and the bus was proceeding from east to west. The correct side of the motor cyclist was northern side and that of the bus was southern side. The Tribunal found the negligence on the side of the bus driver relying upon Exts.A1, A2 and A4. It has also considered the evidence of PW1. 2. It has to be stated that Ext.A4 is the final charge sheet filed by the Police against the bus driver. It clearly describes the place of accident. The road at the accident site was having a width of 7.28 meters. The accident had taken place at 7.10 meters south of the northern tar end, which indicates that the accident had taken place on the extreme southern side of the road. So it can be understand that the motor cyclist was on his wrong side. Still, the Tribunal found MACA No.484/05 2 that the driver of the bus was totally negligent. It has to be remembered that the driver of heavy vehicle is expected to bestow more care and attention especially in a road where the accident had taken place. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that the motor cyclist was traveling with his wife and two children which would have also attributed to the control of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Mere traveling of more number of persons may not ipso facto lead to that conclusion. The factum that the accident had taken place on the wrong side of the bike also shows that he had contributed to the accident. 4. Considering the materials available, this court is only in a position to apportion the negligence on both the drivers, i.e., 75% on the bus driver and 25% on the motor cyclist. Learned counsel also argued about the quantum awarded. The claimant was an ex- military personnel and was only aged 34 years. Certainly he would have attempted to get some job for making his livelihood thereafter, though he had a reasonable pension of Rs.7,500/-. The Tribunal took his income at Rs.2,000/- for the purpose of calculation of compensation. It can also be seen that this man had undergone a MACA No.484/05 3 very prolonged treatment and had also spent Rs.35,000/- for his treatment. The Tribunal has granted him Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Though there was a disability certificate for 9.5%, the Tribunal took it only 5%. So it cannot be said that the Tribunal has transgressed its limit or awarded unreasonable compensation. Therefore I decline to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. But the fact remains that when he has attributed 25% to the accident, he may have to forego that amount of 25%. When it is worked out, it would come to Rs.20,193/-. So the claimant would be entitled to Rs.60,581/-, which I round to Rs.60,580/-. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs.60,580/- with 6% interest on the said sum from 30.6.01 till realisation. Rest of the award will remain as passed by the Tribunal. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.484/05 4