IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 515 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.445/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KANNUR, NOW REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------- E.K.ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNHI, THAYAL HOUSE, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, ARANGADI.P.O, HOSDURG TALUK. ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ----------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No.515 of 2006 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November , 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair .J, We have heard senior counsel appearing for the appellant and counsel appearing for the respondent. The claim petition arises out of an accident, which was caused by an unidentified car, when it hit the motor cycle in which the respondent was travelling on the pillion. Since the details of the car which hit the motor cycle and caused accident were not known, the claim petition was filed before the M.A.C.T. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the owner-cum-rider and insurer of the motorcycle. However, the respondent/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, the M.A.C.T. found that the above said petition as one not maintainable and therefore rejected the same with a direction to the respondent/claimant to file the claim under Section 163 A of the Act. So the respondent/claimant sought for conversion of the claim petition to one under Section 163 A of the Act, and the same was dismissed by the M.A.C.T. Without mentioning the earlier proceedings another claim petition was filed by the respondent/claimant under Section 163 A of the Act which was allowed by the M.A.C.T. by the impugned award. The counsel for the appellant pointed out that a claim under Section M.A.C.A. No. 515 of 2006 -2- 163 A is not maintainable because this is a fit case for claiming benefit under Section 163 of the Act . However, it is not known whether the Central Government has implemented any scheme under Section 163 entitling the respondent/claimant to claim benefit . Event though we find that it was improper for the respondent/claimant to file a fresh claim petition without mentioning the filing of an earlier claim petition and rejection of the same, we still feel the respondent/claimant should not be declined relief because even under Section 140 of the Act, he is entitled to compensation upto a fixed sum of Rs. 25,000/- for permanent disability The Medical Board have certified 40% disability for the injury and fracture sustained to his left femur. Even though disability is not of the type referred to under Section 142, we still feel, since there is partial disability which was treated by the M.A.CT. as permanent in nature, he is entitled to a compensation of only Rs. 25,000/- . Accordingly we allow this appeal in part by modifying the award by reducing the compensation by Rs. 25,000/-. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 515 of 2006 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 18st November, 2008