IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1514 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.1426/1998 of PRL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- SUNNY,S/O. GEORGE, AGED 45 YEARS,VELLAKKAKUDIYIL HOUSE, MEEMUTTY,KODENCHERY,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.JIJI THOMAS SMT.SMITHA MATHEW RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ 1. E.BEERAN HAJI,THEENIKKAL HOUSE, VALLUAVAMBRAM, MALAPPURAM. 2. JIJI,S/O. MATHEW, KALLUPARAMBIL HOUSE,KODENCHERY PO, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. CITY BRANCH OFFICE NO.2,2ND FLOOR SEEMA TOWERS, BANK ROAD, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 1514 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, in OP(MV) 1426/98. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded him a total compensation of Rs. 23,100/- and deducted 50% for the contributory negligence. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal challenging the negligence aspect as well the quantum of compensation. 2. The claimant did not produce the basic documents necessary to decide the case. He had only produced the first information report. Neither the scene mahazar nor the charge sheet was produced. The Tribunal had expressed his helplessness in this case. After 10 years there is no point in reconsidering the matter again by sending it to the same Tribunal. In spite of repeated opportunities, the claimant did not produce those documents. As it is a collision between two vehicles, the Tribunal’s finding that both vehicles are equally responsible for the accident is not to be interfered with. 3. The next question to be considered is with regard to compensation. The claimant claims to be an agriculturist as well as an LIC agent. He had not lost any income from the agriculture. But being an LIC agent atleast an amount of Rs.1,500/- could have been taken as his MACA No. 1514/07 2 income, Therefore, I am inclined to grant an amount of Rs.1,000/- more towards loss of earning. It is evidenced from the records available that the claimant had sustained fracture of both bones of the leg namely tibia and fibula. when such an injury is caused it is certain that his leg would have been under plaster cast for a considerable length of time. He was only aged 36 years. The said injury would have caused him temporary disability as well as loss of amenities and enjoyment in life for him. The Tribunal has only awarded a nominal compensation of Rs.1,000/- under that head. Therefore, I am inclined to enhance the compensation under that head by Rs.8,000/- out of which 50% has to be deducted for the contributory negligence. The Tribunal did not deduct any amount for the reason that it has awarded amount under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act earlier. 4. Since the Tribunal has not chosen to deduct any amount for the contributory negligence, even the enhancement of this amount would not help the claimant to get any further compensation. Therefore the appeal is disposed of with the observation that the claimant is not entitled to any additional compensation on account of the above reasons. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 1514/07 3