IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 574 of 2003(D) ---------------------- OPMV.638/1994 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT ----------------------- SEBASTIAN @ SUNNY, S/O. SCARIA, MONATTUKULAM HOUSE, VACHAPPALLY EAST VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.ANTONY C. ETTUKETTIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JUDY GEORGE, MOOLEKATTIL HOUSE, VALIYAKULAM, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. ANTONY GEORGE, MOOLEKATTIL HOUSE, INDUSTRIAL NAGAR, CHANGANACHERRY. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHANGANACHERRY. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON 16/07/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A . NO: 574 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the ____th Day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT M. L. Joseph Francis J. This appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P.MV 638/1994 on the file of M.A.C.T. Kottayam. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the respondents 1 to 3 in that OP which was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The allegation is that on 28.3.93 while the petitioner was walking through the side Changanaserry - Vazhoor road, a motor cycle bearing No.KRO - 1031 driven by first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the petitioner as a result of which the petitioner sustained injuries. Second respondent was the owner of the motor cycle and third respondent was the insurer. The original claim was for Rs.1,10,000/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.4,00,000/- M.A.C.A . NO: 574 OF 2003 : 2: 2. In the Claims Tribunal respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte. Third respondent filed written statement admitting the policy and contends that the accident was due to the negligence of the petitioner and that compensation claimed is excessive. Before the Claims Tribunal no oral evidence was adduced from both sides. Exts. A1 to A17 were marked on the side of the petitioner. The Claims Tribunal on considering the evidence found that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of first respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.16,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs from third respondent. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioner filed this appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the third respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due to the accident, the appellant sustained head injury and due to the M.A.C.A . NO: 574 OF 2003 : 3 : head injury the appellant suffers from epilepsy and now he is under anti epilepsy treatment. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that after filing of the O.P., the appellant went to Abudabi for employment and was employed there. Since head injury was serious epilepsy condition was not cured and he suffered from fainting and fits and he became unconscious for several days and due to this inability the appellant cannot drive his car which was inevitable part of his job, as he was working as a salesman. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that several doctors opined that it is incurable disease and the appellant has to take life long medication. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a certificate from Medical Board is necessary for the proper disposal of the case. The appellant filed I.A. 2969 of 2002 before M.A.C.T., Kottayam for referring the matter to the Medical Board, which was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant admitted that the main prayer of the appellant is to refer the case to M.A.C.A . NO: 574 OF 2003 : 4: the Medical board so as to assess the disability. On going through the lower court records, it is seen that I.A. 2969 of 2002 was dismissed by the M.A.C.T. Kottayam on the ground that the accident was in 1993 and the petitioner was in Gulf, employed there for a long time and there was no treatment during those days. The Claims Tribunal opined that the petitioner filed IA 2969/02 in 2002 with the allegation to get him examined by Medical Board to assess his condition with reference to complaint of epilepsy, the nexus of which with the accident is not established and that it is not necessary to have him examined by Medical Board. We also agree with the reasoning given by the Claim Tribunal for rejecting the prayer for referring the petitioner to Medical Board. 5. Ext. A5 is the Medical certificate issued from Medical College Hospital which shows that due to the accident, the petitioner sustained head injury with temporary haemorrhage and was treated as Inpatient for 18 days. Ext.A1 is the discharge card M.A.C.A . NO: 574 OF 2003 : 5 : which shows that the petitioner was later reviewed thrice or more till 13.8.95. Thereafter the appellant was for a long time in Gulf county having him employed there. In the original petition at first, the petitioner was stated to be an agriculturist having a monthly income of Rs.2,500/-. In 2001, the O.P. was amended stating that the appellant was a salesman in Abudabi having a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/- As observed by the Claims Tribunal the appellant after accident, proceeded to Gulf and was employed there for a considerable long time and was travelling to India and returning to Gulf frequently without any disability or loss of earning power. In fact, the evidence shows that after the accident his income is increased by getting employment abroad. Based on the records produced the Claims Tribunal, awarded Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering, Rs.2,000/- was awarded towards treatment expenses, Rs.3,000/- was awarded towards loss of earning for two months. Rs.1,000/- was awarded as bystander M.A.C.A . NO: 574 OF 2003 : 6 : expenses. Thus in total, The Claims Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.16,000/- for compensation. The appellant has not produced any other document before this court. Therefore we are of the view that Claims Tribunal is perfectly justified in awarding Rs.16,000/- as compensation based on the available records. The result is, this appeal has to be dismissed as it is without any merits. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in this appeal. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. dl/