IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1681 of 2004()
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KALATHIL MARIUMMA, W/O.ABDUL KAREEM,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :21/12/2009
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ
-----------------------------
M.A.C.A No.1681 of 2004-C
------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
P.R.Raman J
The appellant is the insurer of the vehicle. Smt.Kalathil
Mariumma aged 50 years, the claimant before the Tribunal who
alleged that while walking as pedestrian, a motor cycle ridden rashly
and negligently by the first respondent came and hit her and as a
result she sustained injuries. For the injuries sustained she claimed
compensation. The second respondent in the claim petition is the
owner of the vehicle and the 3rd respondent is the appellant/insurer.
According to the appellant the accident happened when the claimant
was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle ridden by none other
than her own son, who was a minor and did not possess a valid
driving licence. The respondent admitted that there was insurance
coverage to her vehicle. On the side of the 3rd
respondent/appellant, Exts.B1 and B2 were marked and the
Investigating Officer of the insurance company was examined as
RW1. But the Court below found that Ext.A6 copy of the charge
M.A.C.A No.1681 of 2004-C 2
sheet shows that the rider of the motor vehicle was charge sheeted
under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the
driver and owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte. In such
circumstances, based on Ext.A1 copy of the FIR and also Ext.A6
charge sheet, the Court below accepted the case of the claimant and
found negligence on the part of the first respondent, rider of the
vehicle.
2. The learned counsel Sri.Mathews Jacob, appearing for the
appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have accepted the
evidence adduced on the part of the insurance company. The court
below found that the accident occurred as a result of negligent
driving of the claimant’s son, who was a minor without any valid
licence. With the available evidence on record we are unable to
accept the contention. The registration particulars of the vehicle
would have been called for/summoned from the registration
department to prove the ownership of the vehicle. That was not
done. None of the police officers who charge sheeted the first
respondent was also examined in the case. In the absence of better
evidence on records, it cannot be said that the finding of the
Tribunal is in any way perverse. In the circumstances, the finding of
M.A.C.A No.1681 of 2004-C 3
the Tribunal attributing negligence on the part of the first
respondent is only to be confirmed. As against a claim for an
amount of Rs.2,50,000/- only an amount of Rs.73,800/- was
awarded under different heads. As a matter of fact the substantial
amount of Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards medical expenses
incurred to the claimant. The amount awarded towards pain and
suffering, transportation charges, damages to clothing and by-
stander’s expense etc are very nominal. Considering the severity of
the injuries sustained, the compensation awarded towards pain and
suffering and the medical expenses cannot said to be on the higher
side.
In the result, we find that the amount of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is also not liable for any interference. I find
no merit in the appeal. Hence dismissed.
Sd/-
P.R.RAMAN
(JUDGE)
Sd/-
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
(JUDGE)
ab