IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No.785 of 2005(G) ----------------------------- OPMV.158/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ----------------------------- MRS. BABY REENA, W/O.PAUL VARGHESE, 'KADAMANA' HOUSE, DHOTTAPPAMKULAM, BEENACHI, SULTAN BATHERY. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.SUMESH KUMAR N.C. RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------ 1. K.K.BASHEER, S/O.ANDRU, 'KERAMKUNNU' HOUSE, AMBILERI, KALPETTA. 2. P.K.MADHAVAN NAIR, S/O.UKKAPPAN NAIR, 'PALISANKOTTU' HOUSE, RESIDING AT C.C.VAKERI P.O., SULTAN BATHERY. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KALPETTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. ADV. SRI.LALJI P.THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.E.M.JOSEPH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. B. KOSHY & K. P. BALACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ M. A. C. A. No.785 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy, J Appellant/claimant sustained injuries in an accident on 12/02/1997. She filed an application for compensation claiming an amount of Rs.1 lakh contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent/Driver of the lorry which was owned by the Second Respondent/owner and insured by the third respondent/Insurance Company. It was found by the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent but only Rs.10,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. In the absence of production of insurance Policy, the owner and driver of the vehicle is directed to pay the M. A. C. A. No.785 of 2005 -2- above amount with interest and costs. 2. Two contentions were raised in this appeal. First contention is that the amount awarded is very meagre. She was an inpatient for four days. No certificate is produced assessing permanent disability. She suffered lacerated wound and contusion of left side forehead and brain concussion. The claimant was a Teacher. No evidence was produced with respect to the leave taken by her. Her employment was not affected. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that no enhancement is needed in the award passed by the Tribunal. 3. The second contention is regarding the coverage of the insurance at the time of the accident. Owner and driver remained absent in the proceedings. Therefore, insurance policy M. A. C. A. No.785 of 2005 -3- was not produced. Now a copy of the insurance policy is produced. We have directed the Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company to verify the same. It is submitted that the policy produced was a genuine policy and during the period in question the offending vehicle was covered by valid insurance policy. It is further explained that the respondent has taken the policy from the National Insurance Company, Kalpetta, but it is the Calicut branch of the Insurance Company that issued the certificate. But if it is verified properly by the Kalpetta branch with the Head Office, the confusion could have been avoided. In any event, there was valid insurance at the time of the accident. Therefore, the amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum and M. A. C. A. No.785 of 2005 -4- costs as awarded by the Tribunal should be deposited by the Insurance Company. 4. Appeal is allowed to the above extent. J. B. KOSHY JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-