IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 MFA.No. 861 of 2002() --------------------- OPMV.905/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT: 1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------- KALIKKODAN SANTHOSH S/O.JANARDHANAN, GOPAL STREET, KANNUR BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ------------------------------------------ 1. K.K.SAINUDEEN S/O.KOYA, KAMMALAYIL HOUSE, P.O. KOOMANPARA, ADIMALI, IDUKKI. 2. K.MALLIKA W/O.RAJAN, CHATTA HOUSE, PUZHATHI, KANNUR DISTRICT 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KANNUR. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J. ------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.861 of 2002 ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT First respondent driver in O.P.(MV) No.905/1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery is the appellant. The claimant met with a motor vehicle accident and sustained injuries. He filed Original Petition claiming compensation, impleading the appellant who was the driver of the autorickshaw, owner and insurer. Appellant and owner filed a joint written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of a stage carriage bus and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the autorickshaw. Quantum of compensation claimed was disputed. Third respondent insurer filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred on 8.30 a.m. on 25.11.1994 but the autorickshaw was insured only at 1.30 p.m. on the same day. Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant and awarded an amount of Rs.22,400/- as compensation. As there was no valid policy of insurance the insurer was exonerated. Challenging that award this appeal is filed. 2. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued before me that the finding regarding negligence is wrong, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The contention raised by the appellant is that due to the negligence of the driver of the stage carriage bus the accident occurred. MFA No.861/2002 2 Initially case was registered against the driver of the bus. But after investigation final report was filed implicating the appellant as the accused. Tribunal after assessing the evidence adduced in the case found the appellant guilty. That is a finding of fact based on good evidence. First respondent/claimant sustained fracture of 5th metatarsal right leg. After considering all aspects of the case Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.22,400/- as compensation. Compensation awarded is also reasonable. I do not find any reason to interfere with it. But considering all aspects, I am of the view that the interest at 9% can be reduced to 7.5%. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. That part of the award by which the Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation is modified and reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. In all other respects the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. cks MFA No.861/2002 3 K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. M.F.A.No.861 of 2002 JUDGMENT 5th February, 2008.