IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1514 of 2007()
1. SUNNY,S/O. GEORGE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. E.BEERAN HAJI,THEENIKKAL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. JIJI,S/O. MATHEW,
3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
For Petitioner :SRI.JIJI THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :03/11/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
M.A.C.A No. 1514 OF 2007
---------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Principal
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, in OP(MV) 1426/98. The
claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded
him a total compensation of Rs. 23,100/- and deducted 50% for the
contributory negligence. It is against that decision, the claimant has come
up in appeal challenging the negligence aspect as well the quantum of
compensation.
2. The claimant did not produce the basic documents necessary to
decide the case. He had only produced the first information report. Neither
the scene mahazar nor the charge sheet was produced. The Tribunal had
expressed his helplessness in this case. After 10 years there is no point in
reconsidering the matter again by sending it to the same Tribunal. In spite
of repeated opportunities, the claimant did not produce those documents.
As it is a collision between two vehicles, the Tribunal’s finding that both
vehicles are equally responsible for the accident is not to be interfered with.
3. The next question to be considered is with regard to
compensation. The claimant claims to be an agriculturist as well as an LIC
agent. He had not lost any income from the agriculture. But being an LIC
agent atleast an amount of Rs.1,500/- could have been taken as his
MACA No. 1514/07
2
income, Therefore, I am inclined to grant an amount of Rs.1,000/- more
towards loss of earning. It is evidenced from the records available that the
claimant had sustained fracture of both bones of the leg namely tibia and
fibula. when such an injury is caused it is certain that his leg would have
been under plaster cast for a considerable length of time. He was only
aged 36 years. The said injury would have caused him temporary disability
as well as loss of amenities and enjoyment in life for him. The Tribunal has
only awarded a nominal compensation of Rs.1,000/- under that head.
Therefore, I am inclined to enhance the compensation under that head by
Rs.8,000/- out of which 50% has to be deducted for the contributory
negligence. The Tribunal did not deduct any amount for the reason that it
has awarded amount under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act earlier.
4. Since the Tribunal has not chosen to deduct any amount for the
contributory negligence, even the enhancement of this amount would not
help the claimant to get any further compensation.
Therefore the appeal is disposed of with the observation that the
claimant is not entitled to any additional compensation on account of the
above reasons.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps
MACA No. 1514/07
3