IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 2264 of 2007(D) ----------------------- OPMV.1301/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- SHIJI P., AGED 20 YEARS, PATTAYIL HOUSE, BHARANAKKUZHY, CHERUVANNOOR POST, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA SMT.P.RANI DIOTHIMA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. M/S. MAHENDRA AND MAHENDRA LTD., REGIONAL SALES OFFICE, COCHIN. 2. RAJAN SINGH THAKLE (R2 IS DELETED AS PER ORDER IN IA 3210/2004 DATED 01-03-2006). 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BOMBAY. ADV. SRI.SAJI MATHEW FOR R1 SRI.DENU JOSEPH FOR R1 SMT.K.C.BEENA FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2264 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV)1301/01. The claimant, according to her, was travelling in a jeep bearing Reg. No.KRZ 2049 from Guruvayoor to Kozhikode when another jeep came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which there was a collision resulting in injuries to her. The Tribunal dismissed her case on the ground that materials are not sufficient to establish the case. 2. Heard the counsel for both sides. Learned counsel for the appellant has made available before me the reference card issued by Koya's Hospital, Feroke which would indicate that the claimant was treated as an inpatient with number I.P. 1993/97 from 21.1.97 to 27.1.97. It also would reveal that the cause of accident was described as a collision of two jeeps and the claimant had sustained haematoma on the M.A.C.A. 2264 OF 2007 -:2:- scalp and there was no evidence of fracture. She was also advised to take medicine even after discharge for a period of 5 days. I do not find anything untrustworthy to discard this reference card. 3. When PW1 had been examined she had deposed before the Tribunal that she was minor when she sustained injuries. She had chosen to file the application only after she attained majority and it may not be a ground to hold that her case is false. Ext.A2 reference card only inspires confidence and I am certain that there is evidence to connect the claimant with the accident. 4. So far as the negligence is concerned it is a head on collision between two vehicles and no materials were produced to prove the factum of negligence. Therefore the Tribunal apportioned the negligence at 50% each. I do not find any reason to deviate from that finding. 5. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, this young girl did not have any serious complication but the fact remains that she had sustained M.A.C.A. 2264 OF 2007 -:3:- haematoma on the scalp and there was no fracture. Considering the factum that she had sustained injury on the scalp and she had been in the hospital for seven days, I am inclined to fix her compensation at Rs.8,000/-. As she had chosen to file the case only against one of the vehicles she will be only entitled to get 50% of the amount for the reason that the accident had taken place on account of the act of several tortfeasors. In the result the MACA is allowed and the claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs.4,000/- with 6% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the insurance company is directed to deposit the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment with cost of Rs.250/-. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-