IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1401 of 2004()
1. THILAKAN, S/O. DAMODARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VINOD, S/O. SUKUMARAN,
... Respondent
2. JOSEPH, S/O. MANI,
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.JOY GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :11/07/2008
O R D E R
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