IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 579 of 2003()
1. M.G. THOMASON, AGED 32 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DEEPAK D. POWANI, S/O. RAL CHOTTABAR,
... Respondent
2. P.N. SABU, PANACHIKKAL HOUSE,
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SUDHISH
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :02/07/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
M.A.C.A. No. 579 OF 2003
---------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, in OP(MV) 1660/96. The claimant
who was riding on a motor cycle sustained injuries on account of the
collision with a jeep. The Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the
claimant for compensation. It is against that decision, the claimant has
come up in appeal.
2. Learned counsel would contend that the finding of the
Tribunal is erroneous. According to him, his client was coming from
Thoppumpady towards Thevara and wanted to turn to the right side
whereas the jeep was coming from the Willington Island wanted to turn to
the left side i.e., to the Thoppumpady side. The accident had taken place
on the right side of the junction. When the vehicles want to have a turn at
a junction, there is a principle that one has to slow down the vehicle or halt
the vehicle and then proceed so that they are sure about the road
clearance. It is true that the accident had taken place 4.54 meters south of
the northern tar end. Therefore it is clear that the accident had taken place
on the junction point. Being a heavy vehicle the driver of the jeep is
expected to be more cautious. Similarly the motor cyclist should also have
taken reasonable care in such a wide road. If it has been done, the
MACA No.579/03 2
accident could have been averted. So this is a case where both the parties
have contributed to the accident. Being the driver of a heavy vehicle, I
apportion the negligence at 60% on the jeep driver and 40% on the motor
cyclist.
3. It is true that the Tribunal has not fixed the quantum of
compensation. Since I want to avoid a remand, with the help of the
counsel appearing for both sides and on perusal of the documents, I
proceed to fix the compensation. The claimant had sustained a fracture on
the neck of the talus. He had also pain and contusion over the left parietal
area and linear abrasion on the left thigh and was treated as inpatient in
the hospital for a period of 8 days. He was working with Abad Fisheries.
Ext.A8 would reveal that he was receiving an income of Rs.2,000/- per
month. Ext.A6 medical bill would show that he had spent Rs.5631.75/-
towards medical expenses. So with these documents, I proceed to fix the
compensation.
4. So far as medical expenses is concerned, the bills evidence
Rs.5631/-. Therefore, I allow Rs.5,700/- towards medical expenses. He
was in the hospital for 8 days and certainly his clothes would have also
damaged. Therefore, I allow a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards bystanders
expenses and damage to clothing. Certainly he would have taken some
extra nutritious food for which I award a sum of Rs.500/-. On account of
the same it is submitted that he was not in a position to do the work for
MACA No.579/03 3
almost three months. Therefore, I grant him Rs.5,000/- towards loss of
earning. On account of the fracture on the foot, there would have been
difficulty for him and he would have suffered pain for which I allow
Rs.7,000/-. Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life on account of
the fracture sustained I allow Rs.6,000/- towards that head. Therefore, the
claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.25,200/-. He is entitled to 60%
of the same which would come to Rs.15,120/-.
Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed and the claimant is
awarded a sum of Rs.15,120/- with 7 % interest on the said sum from the
date of petition till realisation from the respondents. The Insurance
company is directed to deposit the amount within a period of 60 days from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Being an old case, the
Tribunal can consider sympathetically regarding the disbursement of the
entire amount.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps
MACA No.579/03 4