IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 MFA.No. 994 of 2002() ----------------------------- OPMV.1303/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT ---------------------------------- SURENDRAN S/O. SIVASANKARAN NAIR, MELEKATTAKKALIL VEEDU, NAVADITHALAKKAL, MONYKANTESWARAM P.O., UAZHAYILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV SRI.K.SUJITH CHANDRA KUMAR RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. SISTER MYDHITS, DHAYA BUILDING, MADHAVI MANDIRAM, MANALOOR, OOROOTTUKALA, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. SURESH KUMAR. S, S/O. SEKHARA PILLAI, PARAMKKORAMELA PUTHEN VEEDU, ATHEYANNOOR, NEYYATTINKARA 3. MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD BRANCH OFFICE, GOVT. PRESS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MFA No.994 OF 2002 ===================== Dated this the 19th day of November 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.(MV)No.1303 of 1998. The claimant was riding an autorickshaw and when it reached the place of accident, an accident took place on account of the collision between the said autorickshaw and a car resulting in injuries to the claimant. The Tribunal found that the claimant has contributed 50% negligence to the accident and fixed a compensation of Rs.52,000/- deducted 50% and awarded Rs.26,000/- It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the finding of negligence requires interference. I had perused the charge sheet, scene mahazar and discussion in paragraph 8 of the award. It is true that a charge sheet is filed against the driver of the car. The scene mahazar would reveal that the road is having a width of 4.70 metres at the place of accident and it has taken place exactly on the middle of the road as per the scene mahazar, i.e. 2 metres and 35 cms. east of the western tar end. The autorickshaw was MFA 994/2002 -:2:- going from south to north and the car from the opposite direction. Being a driver of little more heavier vehicle than autorickshaw the law envisages better care by such car drivers. Further, it can be seen that there are very serious damages sustained to the car. It would indicate that the speed in which the car has come. The autorickshaw driver also, if he had kept his side, he could have also averted the accident. But, as held earlier, being a driver of a bigger vehicle the car driver is expected to bestow better care and therefore I apportion the negligence at 65% on the car driver and 35% on the autorickshaw driver. When this is calculated, the claimant will be entitled to an amount of Rs.33,800/- instead of Rs.26,000/-. Therefore the award is passed for an additional compensation of Rs.7,800/-. In the result, the MFA is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.7,800/- with 9% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the 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/-