IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 981 of 2006() -------------------------------- OPMV.1623/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- BIJU M.P., S/O.PAILY, RESIDING AT MARANGATTU HOUSE, THRIKARIYOOR HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SMT.ANEY PAUL SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SASIDHARAN, S/O.ITTIYETHY, KONNANPILAKKEL HOUSE, CHEENEKKUZHI, THODUPUZHA. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.981 OF 2006 ===================== Dated this the 19th day of November 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)No.1623 of 2001. The claimant a rider of a bike sustained injuries in a road accident, when it collided with a jeep. The Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that the accident, negligence, etc. are not proved. Along with the memorandum of appeal, learned counsel for the appellant had produced an award in O.P.(MV)No.1621 of 2001 passed by the very same Tribunal, in the very same accident relating to a pillion rider, who was travelling in a vehicle involved in the accident. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the entire materials found that the driver of the jeep was negligent and awarded a compensation of Rs.16,750/-. Now it has to be stated that the Tribunal should have tried both these cases together and the result of this case is on account of the failure to do so. Since the very same Tribunal in the very same matter has held that the pillion rider has proved the accident and he is entitled to compensation, it goes without saying the same principle is MACA 981/2006 -:2:- applied in this case as well and therefore I reverse the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence, etc. and hold that the accident had taken place and that the 2nd respondent was responsible for the accident. 2. Now turning to the quantum it is seen that the claimant had sustained punctured wound over submandibular region besides abrasion over right knee and dorsum of the toe and on the lateral aspect of left calf muscle. He was treated in the hospital as an inpatient for a period of 7 days. He was a driver by profession. Therefore I calculate the compensation by taking loss of earning for one month which I fix at Rs.2,000/-, towards treatment expenses, I award a sum of Rs.1,500/-, considering the period of hospitalization and nature of injuries. Towards bystander expenses and extra nourishment for food, I award Rs.1,000/-. Towards pain and suffering a sum of Rs.4,000/- and towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, I award Rs.2,000/- making a total compensation of Rs.10,500/-. Therefore the award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the claimant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.10,500/- as compensation. In the result, MACA is allowed and the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,500/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the 3rd respondent State insurance department is liable to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of MACA 981/2006 -:3:- receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-