IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 MACA.No. 2885 of 2008 -------------------------------- OP(MV) No.732/2006 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------- SHEME UNNI, W/O.UNNI C.P., CHITTOOPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANKUZHI KARA, EDAVOOR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. S.SANTHOSH LAL, S/O.SUGATHAN, NIKARTHIL HOUSE, AVALUKUNNU P.O. ARYAD SOUTH, ALAPPUZHA. 2. PREMKUMAR, S/O.SADANANDAN, KEZHAKAVALIYIL HOUSE, ARYAD DESOM, KOMALAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA CHANGALEERI P.O., MANNARKKAD (OWNER) 3. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., NEAR TOWN HALL, ALAPPUZHA. 4. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.2885 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 8th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P.(MV) No.732 of 2006. The claimant was a passenger in a car which collided with another car resulting in injuries. The Tribunal found that the accident had taken place on the middle of the road and the charge sheet also revealed the place of the accident as the middle portion of the road. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent and the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.570 of 2006. The claimant had sustained lacerated wound on the forehead and linear abrasion on the middle of right shin. She was treated in the Medical Centre, Ernakulam for two days and she had expended Rs.3750/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal awarded her Rs.1250/- towards loss of earning, Rs.3000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.2000/- towards loss of amenities and also compensated her on other grounds and it ultimately deducted 25% of the compensation for the negligence of the driver of the car in which she was travelling. It has to be understood that it is not deducted on the basis of the question of contributory negligence, but on the finding of composite negligence. Since compensation is claimed only against one of the tort-feasor, the amount is deducted and M.A.C.A.No.2885 of 2008 2 compensation is awarded. I find that the Tribunal has not erred in arriving at the decision and it has granted more than reasonable compensation in this case. Therefore, the appeal lacks merits and it is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vns