Vijayan vs Philipose on 25 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
Vijayan vs Philipose on 25 August, 2008




MACA.No. 1041 of 2007()

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       Respondent


                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.HARILAL

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.JAYASANKAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :25/08/2008

 O R D E R
                     M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
              = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
               M.A.C.A. NO. 1041 OF 2007
            = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
        Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008.

                      J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara in O.P.(MV)569/98.

The claimant, a 26 year old labourer by profession sustained

injuries in a road accident which took place on 23.11.97.

The accident took place when the claimant was crossing

Chengannur – Thiruvalla M.C. Road near Thiruvalla K.S.R.T.C.

bus stand. The Tribunal found that the claimant has stated

that he was crossing through the zebra line but the scene

mahazar did not reveal the same and therefore came to the

conclusion that it is a negligent crossing and therefore

dismissed the claim petition on the ground of negligence.

Learned counsel for the claimant had made available before

me all the documents relating to the case. A perusal of the

scene mahazar would reveal that the accident had taken

place 5 metres and 41 cms. east of the western tarred end in

a road which is having a width of 13 meters. Admittedly the

M.A.C.A. 1041 OF 2007

place of accident is a very crowded place where there is large

traffic. It is true that the pedestrians have to be vigilant.

Equally so the drivers of the vehicles. When an accident

takes place in a very crowded part of a city that too near a

bus stand it is certain that the drivers of the vehicles should

be more cautious anticipating the unexpected crossing of

road by laymen or children. So there is responsibility cast on

the driver of the vehicles equally. The claimant also should

have been more vigilant. He should have waited to see

whether vehicles are coming from both sides before the

actual crossing of the road. Considering the fact that it was

a crowded place I feel this is a fit case where negligence can

be apportioned 60% on the driver and 40% on the claimant.

2. The next question is regarding the quantum. A

perusal of the wound certificate would reveal that he was

treated in Pushpagiri Hospital, Thiruvalla and he had

undergone inpatient treatment for a period from 24.11.97 to

8.12.97. He had sustained a contusion over the left clavicle

but later revealed that he had sustained a fracture. Besides

this he had also other injuries on the back of the right elbow.

M.A.C.A. 1041 OF 2007

He was aged 26 years and a coolie by profession I proceed to

fix the compensation as follows.

3. Being a 26 year old man and a labourer by

profession there is nothing wrong in fixing the income at

Rs.1,500/- and therefore I award Rs.3,000/- towards actual

loss of earnings for two months. He was inpatient for four

days and he would have taken some nutritious food. Taking

into consideration both these aspects together I grant

Rs.1,400/- towards bystander’s and extra nutritious food

expenses. Certainly, he would have spent money for

treatment in a private hospital. Since it relates to the period

of 1997 I award Rs.1,500/- towards treatment expenses.

Certainly, he would have suffered pain on account of the

injuries sustained and I award Rs.7,000/- for the same. He

would have also suffered temporary loss of amenities and

enjoyment in life. For which I award Rs.4,000/-. Therefore

the total compensation would come to Rs.16,900/- and the

claimant will be entitled to only 60% of the said amount, i.e.


M.A.C.A. 1041 OF 2007

In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the

claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs.10,140/- with 7%

interest on the said sum from the date of petition till

realisation and the 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.



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information