IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1862 of 2006()
1. SEBY, AGED 37 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BABU, S/O. ALEMMA VARKEY,
... Respondent
2. JOBY JOSE, S/O. JOSE,
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :21/10/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 1862 OF 2006
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P.(MV)2128/01.
The claimant is alleged to have sustained injuries in a road
accident by overturning of an auto rickshaw in which he was
travelling and thereby he had sustained injuries. The
Tribunal found that the case put forwarded by him is not true
and therefore dismissed the claim petition. It is against that
decision the appeal is preferred.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well
as the insurance company. Learned counsel had made
available before me for perusal all the concerned documents
relating to the accident. It is true that in the top of the
wound certificate the date and hour of examination is as 11
p.m. on 14.3.2001. It can again be seen in the bottom part
of the same wound certificate that the date of admission is
on 15.5.2001 and the date of discharge is 19.5.2001. The
M.A.C.A. 1862 OF 2006
-:2:-
same hospital authorities had given a discharge summary
wherein the admission date is shown as 15.5.2001(1 a.m.)
and discharged on 19.5.2001. The Tribunal went against the
claimant because of the difference in dates. It is stated that
in the wound certificate date shown is as 14.3.2001 whereas
the claimant alleges that the accident had taken place on
14.5.2001 and further it held that there was no damages to
the auto rickshaw and further that the history of the accident
is given as a fall from auto rickshaw. So far as the date is
concerned it is only a mistake committed by the K.G.
Hospital, Angamaly. It can be seen from the other records
and even found from the bottom of the very wound
certificate. The police constable had gone to the hospital
wherein the claimant has cogently stated that there was an
overturning of the auto rickshaw on 14.5.2001 at 11 p.m.
When the accident had taken place at 11 p.m. and the
patient will be brought to the hospital necessarily after
examining him in the causality and when he is admitted it
may cross midnight and that is why the time of admission is
M.A.C.A. 1862 OF 2006
-:3:-
shown as 1 a.m. on 15.5.2001. I do not find anything
suspicious in these records and I am convinced that the
accident had taken place on 14.5.2001 at 11 p.m. as
suggested by the claimant. The claimant was only a
passenger in an auto rickshaw. The cause of accident is on
account of the overturning of the auto rickshaw. Just
because the auto rickshaw had not sustained any damages
one cannot hold that it is a false case. The police has
investigated the case and they have filed a charge sheet as
well and the document produced by him would show that the
cause of his injury was only on account of the fact that an
auto rickshaw was involved. Irrespective of the question
whether the auto rickshaw overturned or he fell from the
auto rickshaw, the accident had taken place only on account
of the use of a motor vehicle of which the claimant was only
a passenger and therefore one cannot attribute negligence
on him. Therefore from these discussions I hold that the
claimant has succeeded in proving that the accident had
taken place on account of the negligent driving of the auto
M.A.C.A. 1862 OF 2006
-:4:-
rickshaw driver.
3. Now turning to the quantum, I am proceeding to
decide the matter with the available materials. The claimant
was 32 year old man and he was a plumbing worker. He had
sustained a contusion on the forehead as 5 x 6 cm. A nasal
wound on right side of 3 x 3 c.m. There was loss of one
tooth and there was mobility of about two teeth. X-ray
revealed that there was no fracture. He was admitted on
15.5.2001 and discharged on 19.5.2001 and at the time of
his discharge his condition was good. With these materials I
proceed to fix the compensation.
4. Towards bystanders expenses for four days I
award Rs.400/-. Towards extra nourishment and transport
expenses at the rate of Rs.300/- I grant Rs.600/-. Towards
medical expenses especially under the circumstances that he
was treated in a private hospital and was an inpatient for
about a period of 5 days, I grant a sum of Rs.1,000/-. I
grant a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards pain and sufferings,
Rs.3,000/- is awarded for the loss of one tooth and another
M.A.C.A. 1862 OF 2006
-:5:-
Rs.2,000/- is awarded for the injury caused to the tooth such
as mobility etc. and Rs.1,000/- is awarded towards
compensation for loss of amenities thereby entitling the
claimant to have a compensation of Rs.12,000/-.
In the result the MACA is allowed and the award passed
by the Tribunal is set aside and the claimant is awarded an
additional compensation of Rs.12,000/- with 7.5% interest
on the said from the date of petition till realisation and the
respondent, insurance company is directed to deposit the
same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of
a copy of the judgment.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-