IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 MFA.No. 1293 of 2001(B) --------------------------------- OPMV.129/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA ........................................ APPELLANT/CLAIMANT --------------------------------- MYTHEEN @ MOIDHEEN, S/O. MEHAROOB, PUNNAKOTTAYIL VEEDU, VARAPETTY. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, GRAMOU PAPER AND BOARDS LTD., BUILDING NO. 11/245 A & B, KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. SANTHOSH, S/O. VARGHESE, PARAPLACKAL VEEDU, EAST MARADY, MARADY P.O., MOOVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHANGANASSERY BRANCH. 4. MEERAKUTTY, S/O. MAKKAR, VEZHASSERY KUDUY VEEDU, MULAVOOR P.O. 5. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., MOOVATTUPUZHA. M.F.A NO. 1293/2001 6. THE DIRECTOR, CANARA PAPER MILLS LTD., CHETTIPUZHA, CHANGANASSERY. R5 BY ADVS. SRI.KKM.SHERIF R3 BY SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. ------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.1293 OF 2001 (B) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. Appellant while riding as a pillion rider in a scooter sustained injuries when the scooter was hit by a tempo van. In the application, he stated that both scooter driver as well as the tempo van driver were negligent. But when he was examined as PW1, he deposed that the entire fault was due to the negligence of the driver of the tempo van and accident occurred in a junction. But after perusing the scene mahazar produced by the claimant himself, tribunal found that accident occurred in a straight road with clear visibility and the scooter was in the extreme wrong side. The tribunal attributed 25% negligence on the tempo van driver and 75% on the driver of the scooter, we see no ground to defer from the apportionment of the negligence. According to the petitioner, 5th respondent Insurance company has insured the scooter. The police records mentioned a policy number also. But Insurance company MFA.1293/01 2 denied coverage of insurance to the scooter. When the matter came up in appeal, we specifically directed the counsel for the Insurance company to verify whether such policy was issued. It is submitted that no policy was issued in the serial number mentioned in the policy records. Therefore, claimant or owner of the motor vehicle was not able to prove that it was covered by the policy. Hence 5th respondent was exonerated and insurance company of the tempo van was asked to deposit 25% of the compensation awarded and 75% was asked to be deposited by the 4th respondent owner of the scooter. We see no ground to interfere in the above award. As a result of the accident, he suffered fracture of right maxilla and total amount awarded was Rs.32,000/- with 9% interest and costs. We are of the view that just and reasonable amount was awarded and no interference is required, and hence, this appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.HEMA, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.1293 OF 2001 (B) --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 17th January, 2008