IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1041 of 2007()
1. VIJAYAN, MULAVANA, KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PHILIPOSE, KOZHENCHERRY AUTO FUELS,
... Respondent
2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
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
-:2:-
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
-:3:-
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.
Rs.10,140/-.
M.A.C.A. 1041 OF 2007
-:4:-
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.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-
