IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1589 of 2008(D) --------------------------------- OPMV.1041/1998 of II ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER : ------------------------------- NAVAS, S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, PUTHUSSERIL (KAMALATHU VADAKKATHIL), KADATHOOR, K.S.PURAM, KNPY. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS : --------------------------------------- 1. SASANKAN, S/O.SIVASANKARAKURUP, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, PAYIKUZHI, OACHIRA (REGD. OWNER OF KL 2C 9443 MOTOR CYCLE). 2. THANGAL KUNJU, S/O.MYTHEEN KUNJU, VALIYATHU THEKKATHIL, PADINJATTAKARA. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1589 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam in O.P.(MV) No.1041/1998. It is the case of the claimant that on 7.4.1998 when he was standing on the eastern side of the National Highway near Ananda Nursing Home a motor cycle driven by the 2nd respondent came and hit on him resulting injury to him. He was taken to the A.M. Hospital, Karunagappally from where he was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The Insurance Company disputed the accident and held that there has been collision and that is not liable to pay the compensation. In the lower court PW1 was examined and Exts. A1 to A13 were marked. Though the Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs. 18,000/- it dismissed the claim for want of sufficient evidence regarding the involvement and the negligence. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. The Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that though the M.A.C.A.No. 1589 OF 2008 -2- accident took place on 7.4.1998, case was registered only on 10.4.1998 and further the evidence that the motorcycle hit only on the palm of the claimant is not acceptable and lastly it is also stated that according to him the scooter had hit him. I feel the Tribunal has been very technical in the matter. The accident took place in the noon of 7.4.1998. He was immediately taken to the nearby Hospital in an Autorickshaw from where he was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and there he underwent a surgery and Constable has recorded his statement on 10.4.1998. A perusal of the scene mahazar would reveal that the accident had taken place 60 cms west of the eastern tar end in a road which was having a width of more than 7 metres. The wound certificate would reveal that the claimant has been attended at 12.50 p.m on 7.4.1998 by the Medical Officer attached to A.M. Hospital, Karunagappally. But it is recorded it is due to the hit of a scooter while the injured was walking. One should understand that the claimant had sustained injuries and he was taken in an Autorickhaw by strangers to the Hospital and one of them had given the information. But the fact remains that he had been hit by two wheeler. As the injury require surgical intervention he was referred M.A.C.A.No. 1589 OF 2008 -3- to the Medical College Hospital. The police after due investigation has filed charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle. The claimant as PW1 had also deposed about the accident and how the injury took place. One may not be able to pin point which portion of a vehicle hit on a particular person especially when he was injured in the accident with a grievous injury. So the approach of the Tribunal is too technical and it did not give any credence to the report of the investigating agency. The fact remains that the man sustained injury as spoken to by him that to by a hit by a vehicle. First Information Statement was recorded from the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram that he had undergone treatment and therefore I feel the appreciation evidence by the Tribunal is incorrect. The circumstances coupled with documentary evidence as well as oral evidence of PW1 only points out in one direction which is not seriously rebutted by any counter evidence and therefore I hold that the finding of the Tribunal is incorrect. I hold that the accident had taken place on account of the negligent riding of the motorcycle. So far as quantum is considered, Tribunal awarded a reasonable compensation which does not call for interference. M.A.C.A.No. 1589 OF 2008 -4- 3. There is a delay of 352 days in filing the appeal and therefore from 30.12.2006 to 7.4.2008 the Insurance Company shall not be mulcted with the liability to pay the interest. In the result, M.A.C.A is allowed and the claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs. 18,000/- with 6% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till 30.12.2006 and thereafter from 7.4.2008 till realisation. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm