IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

THURSDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 28TH POUSHA, 1945 MACA NO. 1124 OF 2010 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 15/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , IRINJALAKUDA APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 4, 6 & 7 IN OP(MV):

1 SUJATHA P.B.

W/O.LATE RAVI, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PO VELLANGALLUR, THRISUR DISTRICT.

2 BINDHU.K.R D/O.LATE RAVI, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PO VELLANGALLUR, THRISUR DISTRICT.

3 RESMI.K.R D/O.LATE RAVI, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PO VELLANGALLUR, THRISUR DISTRICT.

4 SREEKUMAR.K.R.

S/O.LATE RAVI, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PO VELLANGALLUR, THRISUR DISTRICT.

5 SUBADRA KUMARAN M/O.LATE RAVI, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PO VELLANGALLUR, THRISUR DISTRICT.

6 RAMANAN S/O.KUMARAN, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PO VELLANGALLUR, THRISUR DISTRICT.

SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT IN OP(MV):

1 RAMACHANDRAN S/O.KRISHNAN EMBRANDIRI, MULIKKAL ILLATH MADATHIL HOUSE, VELLANGALLUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

2 SAJEEVAN S/O.CHANDRAN, PAINAKATH HOUSE, MANIYAMKAVU, PUTHERNCHIRA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

3 SUGATHAN S/O.KUMARAN, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PO VELLANGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

SMT.JEENA JOSEPH SRI.G.D.PANICKER THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal arising from O.P.

(MV).No.15 of 2005 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The said Claim petition was initially filed by the appellants 1 to 5 herein with one K.I.Kumaran, seeking compensation for the death of one Ravi, due to the injuries in a motor accident that occurred on 25.12.2004. During the pendency of the claim petition, the 5^th petitioner passed away and the 6^th appellant and the 3^rd respondent were impleaded as the additional 7^th petitioner and the additional 3^rd respondent respectively.

2. The deceased was the husband of the

1^st claimant, father of the claimant Nos.2,3 and 4 and the son of the claimants 5 and 6. The accident occurred when the scooter ridden by the said Ravi was hit by a car bearing registration No.KLU-859 driven by the 2^nd respondent herein in a rash and negligent manner. The said vehicle was owned by the 1^st respondent. The vehicle was not covered with an insurance policy. According to the appellants, the deceased was aged 56 years at the time of the accident and was a PWD contractor with a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances.

3. The 1^st respondent alone filed a written statement, wherein he admitted the accident but disputed the negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent. According to him, the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased himself.

4. Evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. After the trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2^nd respondent in driving the car. Since the vehicle was not insured with any insurance company at the time of accident, the liability to pay the compensation was imposed upon respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The quantum of compensation was fixed up Rs.2,90,000/- and the said amount was to be recovered from respondents 1 and 2 with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate cost. This appeal is submitted by the appellants seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. Heard Sri. P.V.Baby, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Smt. Jeena Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

6. The only contest in this case relates to the quantum of compensation. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the amounts awarded under various heads were grossly inadequate whereas the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would contend that, a reasonable award has been passed and hence,