IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 196 of 2004()
1. SUDHEER M. NAIR, SON OF MOHANAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VISHNU (MINOR), SON OF RAVIKUMAR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
For Respondent :SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :29/05/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
M.A.C.A. No. 196 OF 2004
---------------------
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, in OP(MV) 50/98.
The respondent is the appellant before this court. It is the case of the
respondent/applicant, who is a minor, represented by his father, that he
had sustained injuries on account of a hit by the bike driven by the
appellant. On the other hand, the appellant would contend that his bike
has never hit the boy. According to him, an autorickshaw was proceeding
in front of his motor bike and it was that vehicle which hit the boy and as a
neighbour he had stopped the bike there and he has nothing to do with the
accident. The oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and RW1 and RW2 perused.
PW1, the father of the child, had not seen the accident and therefore there
is no direct knowledge as far as he is concerned regarding the accident.
The court below did not accept the evidence of PW2 as unacceptable.
PW3 is the grandmother who had accompanied the child at the time of
accident.
2. I had gone through the deposition of PW3. PW3 has stated
that while she was taking back the child from the school and when the child
was crossing, the bike has hit and that has resulted in the accident. In
MACA No.196/04 2
cross-examination she had specifically denied the suggestion that it was
the autorickshaw that hit the child. A total reading of the evidence of PW3,
who is 85 years old, inspires confidence in me too to believe that at the
belated age she need not utter a falsehood like this. I had read the cross-
examination again and again to find out whether it is safe to rely upon her
evidence. Her evidence had not been shaken at all and therefore it is not
possible for me to disbelieve her version. Then the counter evidence is in
the form of RW1 and RW2. RW1 necessarily is an interested witness and
RW2 is a friend of him. The court below found that the evidence of RW2 is
intrinsically not reliable or acceptable and therefore did not accept the
same.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant highlighted before me that
in the wound certificate originally the cause of accident is mentioned as hit
by the autorickshaw which has been subsequently corrected as a motor
bike. Admittedly, the evidence before the court would show that the said
information was given by the mother of the child and not the grand mother.
The mother was not available in the scene of occurrence and one has to
understand the anxiety undergone by a mother whose child is involved in
an accident and who had bleeding from the ear and a cerebral concussion.
Therefore I do not consider it as a fatal mistake to throw out the claim.
4. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, I
agree with the finding of the Tribunal and held that the accident took place
MACA No.196/04 3
on account of the bike driven by the appellant. So far as compensation is
concerned, the boy was in the hospital for a period of 5 or 6 days and he
had bleeding from the ear and a cerebral concussion. He was also treated
in the Medical college Hospital as an out patient for 7 days and there was
some abnormality in the voice. On materials available the court below
granted Rs.7,000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs.1,000/- for treatment
expenses, Rs.4,000/- for loss of amenities and some other amount for
transport charges damage of clothing etc. It does not seem to be on the
higher side. Therefore I do not want to disturb the finding of the Tribunal.
The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps