IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 1508 of 2006() ---------------------------------- OPMV.1024/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- GEORGE, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 62 YEARS, MANJUMALAYIL HOUSE, PERUMBALLOOR, ARAKUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. B.BOBAN, S/O.BALAKRISHAN NAIR, PANANTHANATH HOUSE, KALOORKKAD P.O. 2. A.P.SIVAN, S/O.PACHUPILLA, AGED 31 YEARS, ATHIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, ARIKUZHA, MANACKADU. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOTHAMANGALAM BRANCH, POST BOX NO.50, CHURCH VIEW JUNCTION, KOTHAMANGALAM. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.1508 OF 2006 ===================== Dated this the 11th day of December 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)No.1024 of 2002. According to the claimant, he sustained injuries in an accident, but his claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal. It is against that decision, the appellant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the insurance company. It is the case of the claimant that while he was travelling in a bus on 5.1.2001 and as the driver applied the break suddenly his chest hit on the pillar inside the bus resulting in sustainment of injuries. According to him, he visited the hospital only on the next day and it was further revealed that he had fracture on the 6th rib and was treated in the hospital as an inpatient from 8.1.2001 to 11.1.2001. It would also show that he was treated as an outpatient from 6.1.2001 to 8.1.2001 in St.George Hospital, Muvattupuzha. The Tribunal rejected the case of the appellant on the ground that there is inconsistency in the treatment records MACA 1508/2006 -:2:- to the effect that he had reported before the hospital authorities that he sustained injuries on 6.1.2001 on account of a hit by a bus. The Tribunal also found that the law was set in motion after a lapse of about six months and therefore it did not appreciate the case of the claimant. 3. In the trial court, Pws 1 to 3 were examined and the police records were also produced. The police, after due investigation found that the claimant was a passenger in a bus and the bus driver did apply sudden break and the reason for sudden application of the break was on account of a jeep coming from the opposite direction in a reckless manner. The police referred the criminal case on the ground that no criminal negligence can be attributed on the driver of the bus. But the police records reveal that the accident had taken place as spoken to and claimed by the claimant. PW2 was one of the co-passengers in the bus and he had also deposed in terms of PW1. PW3 is the Doctor. He has deposed that the history of the accident was given by the injured in the wound certificate. It is true that there is a difference in the date as 5.1.2001 or 6.1.2001. The insurance company has filed a very elaborate written statement and in some portion of the written statement there is almost an admission regarding the accident but in some other places as a general defence would deny everything. Unfortunately, the driver and the owner of the bus did not conduct the case. Unless there is MACA 1508/2006 -:3:- some materials to show that the claimant has colluded with somebody to defeat the interest of the insurance company, one cannot jump to the conclusion that what is spoken to by Pws 1 and 2 is totally incorrect. It is at this stage the relevance of Ext.X1 investigation result has to be looked into. Though the police has referred the case, the police did find about the accident. It is true that the criminal law was set in motion after few months that does not mean that no accident had taken place at all. The factum of fraud or collusion is not a matter that has to be taken note of by mere conjectures and surmises. On going through the totality of the materials, I find that there is genuineness in the case of the claimant and in no way he was responsible for the sudden application of the break by the driver and therefore I hold that there is sufficient evidence to hold that the claimant had sustained injuries as contended by him and that the negligence has to be attributed on the driver of the bus. Though there is a plea of absence of driving licence a perusal of the award would show that Ext.B2 driving licence is produced and further no evidence is seen discussed regarding the same. 4. Lastly the question only remains about fixation of compensation. The claimant was aged 62 years on the date of the accident and he had been treated in a private hospital for 4 days as an inpatient and he had sustained MACA 1508/2006 -:4:- a fracture on the 6th rib. On account of the fracture of the rib he would not have been in a position to do any work for a period of one month for which I grant him Rs.1,500/-. Towards treatment, bystander and other expenses, damage to clothing, etc., I award him Rs.1,000/-. Towards pain and suffering, I award him an amount of Rs.5,000/- and for the temporary disability, loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, I grant another Rs.2,000/- thereby entitling him to get a compensation of Rs.9,500/-. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.9,500/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the 3rd respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-