IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 2538 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.46/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT IN OPMV ------------------------------------ THE DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER, KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND 1ST 2ND RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. G.GOPALAN ADIYODI, S/O.KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 53 YEARS, VICKY HOUSE, POST KEETHALI, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN-673524 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001. 3. RAJENDRAN .K.P. S/O.NARAYANAN, KODUVALLIPURATH HOUSE POST-CHERUVANNUR, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE PIN-695001. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.2538 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the third respondent - Kerala State Insurance Department, in O.P.(MV)No.46/2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadakara. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated December 30, 2008 awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,02,650/- for the loss caused to the claimant on account of the injury sustained by him in a motor accident. 2. The claimant who is the first respondent in this appeal sustained the following injuries in the accident : 1. Comminuted fracture of left end of radius and right ulna. 2. Fracture of superior and interior pubic rami. 3. Multiple fracture of 7,8 and 11 ribs. 4. Pnumothorax. 5. Fracture pelvis. 3. The claimant is a police constable. The accident happened on July 23, 2003, while the claimant was travelling in a police jeep bearing Reg.No.KL/07/1 AA 4634 chasing a suspected vehicle. Due to MACA.No.2538/2009 2 the negligence of the driver of the jeep, the vehicle hit on a mud wall on the side of the road and the claimant sustained the injuries mentioned above. Alleging negligence against the second respondent, the driver of the jeep, the claimant filed the O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claimant a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 4. First respondent, the Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram who is the RC owner of the vehicle filed a written statement admitting the accident, but denied the liability. The second respondent, the driver of the offending jeep remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, the Kerala State Insurance Department represented by the District Insurance Officer with whom the vehicle was insured filed a written statement admitting the policy. 5. Ext.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the claimants. On the side of the respondents, Ext.B1 was marked. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,02,650/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs. 2,750/-. The third MACA.No.2538/2009 3 respondent, the insurer, has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as the finding of the Tribunal about the negligence aspect. 6. The following points arise for consideration : 1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent can be sustained ? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive ? Point No.1 7. Counsel for the appellant/third respondent argued that the claimant has not proved that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent and that therefore he is not entitled to any compensation. There is no substance in the above contention. The police has charged the case against the second respondent as evidenced by Ex.A5, copy of the police charge. There is no contra evidence on the side of the respondents. Therefore, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in accepting Ext.A5 and holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent. Finding of the Tribunal on this point is confirmed. MACA.No.2538/2009 4 Point No.2 8. Next question for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,02,650/-. The break up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under : Pain and suffering - Rs. 25,000/- Hospitalisation expenses - Rs. 14,200/- Transportation - Rs. 2,500/- Mental shock and inconvenience - Rs. 8,000/- Loss of income - Rs.52,950/- 9. Taking into consideration the nature of the injury sustained by the claimant and the period of treatment he has undergone, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and not excessive. That being so, the appeal has to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.2538/2009 5 MACA.No.2538/2009 6