IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 MACA.No. 2962 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.1498/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT(S): IST RESPONDENT ---------------------------- SAMUEL, S/O.MATHAI SAMUEL, ELANJICKAL HOUSE, CHITTAR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SMT.ANEY PAUL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 ---------------------------------------------- 1. PONNAMMA, D/O.KAMALAKSHMI, PUTHEN VEETTIL, KUMARAMPEROOR VADAKKEKKARA MURI, CHITTAR P.O., CHITTAR-SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, PANNIYAR COLONY, RANNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. RAJESH, S/O.RAJAPPAN, VINOD BHAVAN, POTTANMOOZHI P.O., LAHA, PERUNADU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH, REP. BY ITS ASST.MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., ERNAKULAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No. 2962/08 ORDER ON I.A.NO. 3427/08 IN M.A.C.A. NO. 2962/08 DISMISSED. SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. 5.1.2009 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 2962 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(MV) No.1498/2000. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he had been awarded a compensation of Rs. 77,300/-. It is against that decision the owner has come up in appeal. 2. The tribunal found that the Insurance Company is not liable for the reason that there was no valid policy on the date of accident. This is discussed in para 12 of the award. A perusal of para 12 of the award would reveal that there was a valid policy for the period from 2.9.98 to 1.9.99 and from 11.9.99 to 10.9.2000. Unfortunately the accident took place on 10.9.99 and so there was no valid coverage for the vehicle. So the finding of the tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company cannot be find fault with. 3. Now turning into the question of negligence and quantum. The claimant was only a pedestrian and the tribunal found that the negligence is on the driver of the car. The tribunal referred to the charge sheet as well as the scene mahazar and also found that the M.A.C.A.No. 2962/2008 -2- place of accident is 75 cms towards south from the southern tar end of the road which means it had taken place on the road margin. So one cannot attribute negligence on the pedestrian who was walking through the road margin. Therefore one cannot find fault with the finding on the question of negligence as well. 4. Lastly the learned counsel strongly contends before me regarding the quantum. A perusal of the award would reveal that the claimant had tenderness over 7th, 8th and 9th ribs, lacerated wound on the scalp and also a fracture of the femur right. She was inpatient in the hospital from 10.9.99 to 5.10.99 i.e for 25 days. So taking into consideration the factum of comminuted fracture coupled with other injuries all over the body, the tribunal has fixed the compensation. Similarly the tribunal had taken into consideration the disability certificate issued by a competent medical board. The tribunal took the income at Rs. 1,500/- per month and awarded the compensation. So by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the compensation awarded is also high. Therefore there is nothing to interfere with the decision of the tribunal. M.A.C.A.No. 2962/2008 -3- 5. Lastly the learned counsel submits that some time may be given for payment. Already some amount is deposited for the purpose of filing an appeal and therefore I feel, a time of six months can be granted for payment of the balance amount. In the result, the M.A.C.A. is dismissed but making it clear that further execution with respect to the balance amount can be had only after six months from today. The amount which is deposited shall be disbursed to the claimant. The M.A.C.A is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm