IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 1562 of 2008() ---------------------------------- OPMV.467/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): ----------------------- NAVEENKUMAR, S/O.SANKARA NARAYANAN, NECHULLY PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, MANNARKKAD P.O.,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. HARIDASAN, S/O.DIVAKARAN, HIZHAKKEKKARA HOUSE, IRUMBAKACHOLA PO., KANCHIRAPUZHA MANNARKKAD TALUK DRIVER OF KL-9-H 6949 MOTOR CYCLE 2. V.J.RAJU, S/O.JOHN REJI NIVAS, PALAMPETTA, POTTASSERY PO., MANNARKKAD TALUK RC.OWNER OF KL9H 6949 MOTOR CYCLE. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD MANNARKKAD BRANCH, MANNARKKAD PO., MANNARKKAD TALUK. 4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., JOSEELA COMPLEX, NILAMBUR ROAD MANJERI, MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R3 & R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.1562 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T An unfortunate motor accident victim knocked at the doors of the tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but lost it on account of the fact that he himself was negligent. 2. The materials would show that factum of negligence was found against the claimant in the case and therefore his claim for compensation was dismissed. At one stage of the litigation, insurance company of his own vehicle was impleaded and compensation was claimed. Admittedly the claimant is the owner of the vehicle and if the negligence is on him, he will not get any compensation under Section 166 from his insurance company as well. Similarly under Section 163 A as well, so far as the claimant is concerned, he is the owner of the vehicle and therefore he may not be able to take recourse to that section. Therefore dismissal of the application under Section 166 cannot be found fault with but at the same time if it is a case where the claimant has : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.1562 OF 2008 sustained disablement as contemplated under Section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the benevolent provision under Section 140 can be invoked in a petition under Section 166 and he can be awarded some compensation under the head 'no fault liability'. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant had produced before me a permanent disability certificate which indicates that he had sustained a permanent disability of 6%. It would also show that on account of the injuries to left ring finger and middle finger there was total amputation of the middle finger. So permanent disablement envisaged under Section 142 is attracted and the claimant is entitled to at least a compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. Therefore I confirm the finding regarding non availability of compensation under section 166 but I grant him compensation under Section 140 and the insurance company of the offending vehicle namely the third respondent United India Insurance Company is liable to pay the same. : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.1562 OF 2008 5. In the result, the appeal is disposed of and the claimant is awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/= under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act with 7.5% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the 3rd respondent United India Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.1562 OF 2008