Allowed

Pradeepan v. P.Sadanandan

Kerala HC4 Aug 2008MACA/642/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Court allowed an Appeal filed for enhancement of compensation. The Court held that despite minor exaggeration in disability claims, the Tribunal's denial of disability compensation was unreasonable given protracted treatment and vertebral injury. It awarded an additional Rs. 50,000.

What did the court decide?

The insurance company directed to deposit an additional compensation of Rs. 50,000 with interest from the date of application.

Pradeepan Vs P.Sadanandan — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930

¶5

MACA.No. 642 of 2004()

¶6

--------------------------------OPMV.912/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP(MV):

¶8

----------------------------------------------------

¶9

PRADEEPAN, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. KUNHAMBU NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT PERLAM, KUNDAMKUZHI P.O., KASARAGOD TALUK,KASARAGOD DIST.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶11

SRI.T.P.ELDHO

¶12

RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV):

¶13

-------------------------------------------------------------

¶14

1. P.SADANANDAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, MUKAMBIKA WORKSHOP, PROPRIETOR, P.O. KUNDAMKUZHI, KASARAGOD TALUK,KASARAGOD DIST.

¶15

2. MR.SIJOY JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, KALLUR HOUSE, P.O. JOSEGIRI, CHERUPUZHA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶16

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PAYYANNUR BRANCH, P.B.NO.29, PIN-670 307.

¶17

ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3

¶18

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Rs/

¶20

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶21

& V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.

¶22

M.A.C.A.No. 642 of 2004 B

¶23

--------------------------------------------Dated this the 4^th day of August, 2008

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Ramachandran Nair,J:

¶26

Heard the counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel for the insurance company.

¶27

The appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation. The specific case of the appellant is that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board constituted. Counsel produced the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board wherein disability certified is above 50%. Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company opposed stating that when the appellant was examined in the Tribunal, the Tribunal found no apparent problem for the appellant. In fact, the finding of the Tribunal is that disability certificate is with reference to the injury sustained by the appellant and the subsequent treatment for restoration of his health is not taken note of by the Medical Board.

¶28

MACA NO.642 OF 2004

¶29

:-2-:

¶30

We are unable to accept the reasoning of the Tribunal in denying compensation for disability. However, since the appellant was present in the Tribunal to give evidence and was stated to be apparently fit, we feel, disability above 50% appears to be an exaggeration. However, it is seen that the Tribunal has granted reimbursement for medical treatment to the extent of Rs.21,490/- which shows that the appellant was under protracted treatment. More over, damage is admittedly caused on vertebra. The appellant was only aged 18 years at the time of accident and is stated to be not in a position to move freely to work. Of course, if the vertebra is damaged, there may be restriction in the body movement and flexibility also may be affected. Considering all these, we feel, enhancement of compensation is warranted in this case. We accordingly award additional compensation on account of disability at Rs.50,000/-. The insurance company is directed to deposit the additional compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the

¶31

MACA NO.642 OF 2004

¶32

:-3-:

¶33

date of application till the date of realisation.

¶34

The appeal will stand allowed to the above

¶35

extent.

¶36

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,

¶37

Judge

¶38

V.K.MOHANAN, Judge

¶39

MBS/

¶40

MACA NO.642 OF 2004

¶41

:-4-:

¶42

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.

I.T.A.NO. 81 OF 2000

J U D G M E N T

DATED:17-6-2008

MACA NO.642 OF 2004

¶48

:-5-:

Pradeepan v. P.Sadanandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeepan v. P.Sadanandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syamnath Vs Ouseph Varghese

K.C.Kunhi Mohammed Vs Mohanan

I.T.Radhakrishnan Vs Sivadasan

Leelamma Joseph Vs P.M.Antony

Siju.M.N. Vs Dist.Officer,K.P.S.C.

C.Murali Vs Commissioner Hr & Ce,Dept.Kkd.