Appeal against dismissal of motor accident claim. Court found Tribunal erred in not considering entire evidence but appellant contributed to accident. Court awarded Rs. 12,000/- compensation with interest to appellant.
Compensation of Rs. 12,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from date of application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930
MACA.No. 559 of 2003()
---------------------OPMV.1847/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT(S): APPLT.PTR.IN OPMV,1847/96 MACT.ERNAKULAM.
P.J.GEORGE, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, PARAMBATHU SEERY HOUSE, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, PADIVATTOM KARA.
BY ADV. SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S): OPMV.1847/96.OF MACT.ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.A.K.SRINIVASAN &
SRI.JIMMY GEORGE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.8.2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED FOLLOWING:
C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
V.K. MOHANAN, JJ.
M.A.C.A.No. 559 OF 2003
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair,J.
This appeal is filed against dismissal of claim petition filed before the MACT for compensation for the injury sustained by the appellant in a motor accident. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant, and we have gone through the award. It is seen that the claim is on account of collision between two motor bikes and both the riders sustained injuries. While claim was awarded in the case of other motor bike rider, appellant's case was rejected on the ground that accident was caused on account of negligence of the appellant.
2
respondent as the person causing accident, inspite of occurrence of accident on the northern side of the road which is the wrong side for the appellant. The evidence considered by the Tribunal is only pertaining to the appellant and Tribunal had no occasion to consider the entire evidence in this case. We are unable to uphold the finding of Tribunal pertaining to cause of accident. However, appellant has also not explained the circumstances under which he has gone to the wrong side of the road which led to the accident. In the circumstances, and having regard to the injury sustained by the appellant, we feel appellant is entitled to compensation though not to the extent of the claim. Considering his involvement in the accident, and injuries sustained by him, we award compensation of Rs. 12,000/-. Since the amount is not
high the second respondent is directed to release payment to the appellant with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till date of payment.
Appeal is disposed of as above.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge.
(V. K. MOHANAN) Judge.
kk
3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether appellant is entitled to compensation considering his alleged negligence and injuries sustained in a motor accident.
Whether Tribunal's finding of appellant's negligence as cause of accident can be upset.
What quantum of compensation to award to appellant.
P.J. GEORGE
MAHABOOB
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
V.K. MOHANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
