IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 1116 of 2006() ----------------------- OP(MV)1315/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENTs CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------- RASA @ ABDUL RAHIMAN @ ABDUL RAHIM, S/O. ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 36 YEARS, SAIDE HOUSE, NANDANKIZHAYA, MUTHALAMAD, CHITTUR. BY ADV. SMT.VIDYA GOPINATH SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/2nd RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------- 1. KARTHIYANI, W/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT KARUPPANTHODI PERUVEMBU, PALAKKAD. 2. PAZHANIMALA, S/O. VELAN, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT PERIMCHIRA HOUSE, POTHAMPADAM, MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR. 3. C.P. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. PAZHANYIAPPAN, PONNADIKALAM, AANAMARI, KOLLENKODE, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA - R3 SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL - R1,R2 SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN FOR R1,R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No. 1116/ 2006 ORDER IN I.A. NO.524/2007 IN M.A.C.A No.1116/2006 DISMISSED SD/ 27/06/20085 M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1116 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, in OP(MV) 1315/96. One Velan, aged 75 years, was knocked down by a two wheeler and was taken to Medical College Hospital, Thrissur, where he had succumbed to the injuries. An application was filed by the children of the said Velan for compensation under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal found that respondents 1 and 2 are liable and directed to pay compensation of Rs.62,000/-. It is challenging that award, the 1st respondent in the claim application has come up before this court. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant very strongly contends before me that the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous and it should not have relied only on Ext.A7 to arrive at a decision regarding the ownership of the vehicle. Immediately after the accident, when the first information statement was given, the number of the vehicle involved in the accident was given as TN 41A/6548. Subsequently it has been corrected as KL 9/5882. Learned counsel had made available before me the entire police records. The first information statement was given by the 2nd petitioner in the original petition namely Pazhanimala, wherein he had specifically MACA No.1116/06 2 stated that the person who had driven the motor cycle is none other than the 1st respondent himself namely Rasa. Theyyelan Kittu and Rasa took him to the hospital in a jeep. So who was riding the motor cycle at the relevant time of accident is spoken to by PW1. It is also stated by him that the motor cycle is having the registration No. TN 41A/6548. Subsequently the police had questioned him and he had stated before the police that he gave that number for the reason that it was that vehicle which was normally driven by him. The factum that the vehicle driven by the 1st respondent in the original petition was involved in the accident is clear from the various documents and on the questioning by the police while conducting the inquest. Regarding the number of the vehicle involved in the accident, the 2nd petitioner in the original petition has stated that the 1st respondent in the original petition used to drive the motor cycle bearing registration No. TN 41A/6548 and it was the reason why he gave that number without verifying it. Then he corrected the registration number of the vehicle as KL 9/5882. The vehicle bearing registration No.KL 9/5882 was in the police custody and the police had released that vehicle on kychit to the 1st respondent. All these things would indicate that it was the vehicle driven by the 1st respondent that was involved in the accident. Admittedly by executing the kychit it was the 1st respondent who had taken back the vehicle from the police station. The version of the 2nd petitioner need not be disbelieved for the reason that he will be only interested in prosecuting the proper person. MACA No.1116/06 3 If the vehicle of the 1st respondent was not involved in the accident, there was no necessity for him to accompany him to the Medical College Hospital in a jeep. Further the case has to be decided on the preponderance of probability and not on strict evidence which tends to decide the criminal negligence in a case under section 279 or 338 of the Indian Penal Code. So for the foregoing reasons and on satisfaction that there are sufficient materials and documents, I come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has not erred in finding that it was the vehicle mentioned in the charge sheet that was involved in the accident and that it was driven by the 1st respondent namely the appellant. Since it is a claim under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the question of negligence does not arise for consideration. 3. The next question to be considered is regarding the quantum of compensation. When a petition is filed under section 163A, there is a schedule attached to the Act and it is to be followed. Admittedly, the man was aged 75 years. Beyond the age of 65 years the multiplier to be used is 5. Further, for a person who is having an income of Rs.15,000/-, the table amount would come to Rs.75,000/-. One third has to be deducted for the purpose of personal expenses as per the schedule. So the balance amount would come to Rs.50,000/-. Over and above this, the claimants are entitled to Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate and Rs.1,000/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, the total amount MACA No.1116/06 4 would come to Rs.55,500/-. The Tribunal's award fixing the amount at Rs.62,000/- is to be modified accordingly. In the result, the MACA is disposed of confirming the finding that respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition are jointly and severally liable for the amount and the claimants are awarded a compensation of Rs.55,500/- with 6% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation with a cost of Rs.500/- and respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the amount before the Tribunal within a period of 90 days from today. If the amount is already deposited, it shall be disbursed to the claimants in accordance with law. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.1116/06 5