High Court Kerala High Court

K.Lokhithakshan vs C.Abdul Kareem on 12 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.Lokhithakshan vs C.Abdul Kareem on 12 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 3036 of 2008()


1. K.LOKHITHAKSHAN,S/O.CHOYI, AGED 41,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. C.ABDUL KAREEM, CHEMBAYIL HOUSE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. IBRAHIMKUTTY, S/O.KAMMU, CHEMBAYIL HOUSE

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,BRANCH

                For Petitioner  :SMT.K.V.RESHMI

                For Respondent  :SMT.A.SREEKALA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :12/03/2010

 O R D E R
                      M.N.KRISHNAN,J.
           ========================
           M.A.C.A.Nos.3036 & 3040 OF 2008
           ========================
        Dated this the 12nd day of March 2010.

                          JUDGMENT

These appeals are preferred against the award of the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV).

No.1876/2003 and 1877/2003 respectively. The husband

and wife who were traveling on a bike met with an accident

resulting in injuries to them and the Tribunal has awarded

Rs. 2,700/- to both the claimants after deducting 10%

contributory negligence. It is against that decision the

claimant has come up in appeal. So far as O.P.(M.V)

No.1876/2003 is concerned, it is the wife who has moved

the application and a perusal of the award would reveal that

she had sustained a fracture of the clavicle, besides other

small injuries. The Tribunal felt that in the absence of

production of the x-ray, it is not in a position to know the

seriousness of the fracture. But the fact remains that she

had sustained a fracture of the clavicle. I proceed to

M.A.C.A.Nos.3036 & 3040 OF 2008 2

determine compensation as follows:-

For loss of earning as house wife/as a tailor I grant

Rs.3,000/- for loss of earning. Towards treatment, extra

nourishment, damage to cloth etc. I grant a sum of

Rs.1,000/-. Towards pain and suffering an amount of

Rs.8,000/- is awarded. Towards loss of amenities Rs. 3,000/-

is awarded. Making it a total compensation of Rs.15,000/-

after deducting 10% contributory negligence the

entitlement would be Rs.13,500/- .

2. Now let me consider about O.P.(MV).No. 1877/2003.

It is the case of the husband that he had sustained fracture

of the ulnar styloid, fracture 4th metacarpal and fracture

distal phalanx of right finger. He had also other superficial

injuries. So he also sustained three fractures. I feel that the

amount would have been spent by him also and can be

considered in the same line on that of his wife and I award a

sum of Rs.15,000/-. After deducting the contributory

negligence he will be entitled to Rs.13,500/-.

3. I have to state that the approach made by the

Tribunal in finding a larger percent as negligence and

M.A.C.A.Nos.3036 & 3040 OF 2008 3

deducting a lesser percent is unknown to law and said

Tribunal is repetitively committing the same mistake.

Since the other side has not filed an appeal and after going

through the seen mahazar, I find that there need not be any

further deduction on contributory negligence, I confirm

that finding.

In the result, both M.A.C.As are disposed of and in O.P

(MV).No.1876 and 1877/2003 the claimants therein are

awarded compensation of Rs.13,500./- each with 7.5%

interest from the date of petition, till realisation and the

respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

said amount in both the cases within a period of 60 days

from the date of the receipt of the copy of the judgment. If

any amount is already paid or deposited that shall be given

credit to and balance need be deposited.

M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE.

mns