LAWS(KER)-2025-5-422

JORDY Vs. JOY JACOB

Decided On May 21, 2025
Jordy Appellant
V/S
Joy Jacob Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant in O.P (MV) No.2067 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

(2.) According to the appellant/claimant, on 18/1/2000 at about 12.00 pm, while the claimant was travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KL-5H-8059 driven by the 5th respondent from Ettumanoor to Athirampuzha, a jeep bearing registration No.KL-6-4375 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the autorickshaw and thereby caused serious injuries to the petitioner and other co-passengers. The appellant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.13,00,000.00.

(3.) Though notice was served to all the respondents, the 3rd respondent alone filed a written statement before the tribunal. The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 were marked and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A22 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the jeep and awarded a sum of Rs.3,72,366.00 as compensation under different heads with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs from respondent-insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal. After filing of this appeal, though, the appellant was referred to the medical board thrice and two reports dtd. 13/3/2023 and 14/9/2023 were obtained. Out of the two reports, in reports dtd. 13/3/2023 and 14/9/2023 the disability was assessed at 80% and 48% respectively. In the first report dtd. 25/6/2004 which was obtained during the pendency of the original petition before the tribunal, the disability was assessed at 35%.