IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 1551 of 2001()
1. VIJAYAKUMAR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VIJAYAKUMAR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
For Respondent :SRI.KKM.SHERIF
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :20/06/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------
M.F.A.No.1551 OF 2001
-------------------------------------
Dated 20th June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
Appellant/claimant sustained injuries in a motor accident.
Appellant was an autorickshaw driver. He was aged 31 at the time of
accident. He claimed a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/= contending
that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car
which was insured by the third respondent insurance company. It is his
case that he was standing on the road side. An authorickshaw was hit by
a car and in turn the autorickshaw lost its control and hit the appellant
who was standing on the road side. From his evidence it is clear that the
car hit him from behind. One witness was examined as PW1. He
deposed that the car came in the wrong side and hit autorickshaw and
autorickshaw driver was also negligent as he turned broadly to the right
side. Considering the totality of evidence, the Tribunal found that the
accident occurred due to the composite negligence of the car driver as
well as autorickshaw driver and, therefore, apportioned the liability as 50
: 50. We see no ground to interfere in the finding regarding
negligence. There was no insurance for the car. Therefore, driver and
owner of the car were held liable. The autorickshaw has valid insurance.
MFA.1551/2001 2
Since 50% negligence was fixed on the autorickshaw driver,
insurance company of the autorickshaw is liable to pay 50% of the
compensation. That was done by the Tribunal. It is also stated that
percentage of disability as assessed by the doctor is not correct.
Therefore, we directed the claimant to be examined by a Medical
Board of Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. Medical Board was
constituted and he was directed to appear before the Medical Board
on 18.9.2007, but, he failed to report before the Medical Board. In
the above circumstances, we are unable to interfere in the impugned
award.
The appeal is dismissed.
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
P.N.RAVINDRAN
JUDGE
tks