IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1401 of 2004() ---------------------------------- OPMV.1669/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- THILAKAN, S/O. DAMODARAN, THYPARAMBIL HOUSE, PADINJARUM BHAGOM, KADAPPOOR KARA, KANAKKARI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR SMT.LEENA KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. VINOD, S/O. SUKUMARAN, THACHANATTU HOUSE, S.N.D.P. BHAGOM, PEROOR KARA, PEROOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 2. JOSEPH, S/O. MANI, PAZHOOR HOUSE, PERUMPAIKKATTUSSERI KARA, PERUMPAIKKADU VILLAGE. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOY GEORGE - R3 SMT.ANU VENU - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1401 OF 2004 --------------------- Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, in OP(MV) 1669/98. The claimant, aged 45 years, sustained injuries is a road accident. It is averred that since the vehicle belonged to him he claimed compensation for damages sustained to the vehicle . The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.7,000/- for the personal injury sustained and rejected the claim with respect to the vehicle on the ground that the registered owner is a different person. It is aggrieved by that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the compensation awarded is inadequate. The nature of injuries sustained are stated in para 6 of the award. It shows that he had lacerated injury on the knee and a contusion on the forearm. He was inpatient in the hospital for three days. Considering the factum of the simple injury, the Tribunal has granted him Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.1,000/- for treatment expenses including MACA No.1401/04 2 transportation and bystanders expenses and Rs.1,000/- for loss of earning. Considering the nature of the simple injury sustained in the accident, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and therefore it does not call for any interference by this court. 3. So far as damages sustained to the vehicle is concerned, it is the prime responsibility of the claimant to establish his ownership over the property. Admittedly the registered owner of the Auto is one V.K.Soman. It is proved by Ext.A11. But there was a plain paper receipt purporting to be an agreement of sale. But it was not proved. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly rejected that claim also. I do not find any merit to interfere with the decision rendered by the Tribunal. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.1401/04 3