Allowed

Sr.Perpetua v. Sivanandan

Kerala HC8 Jan 2008MFA/160/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal order that reduced interim compensation to Rs. 3,350. The court held the final award unsustainable as it failed to account for disability and other statutory elements, restoring entitlement to the interim amount.

What did the court decide?

Final award of the Tribunal allowing Rs. 3,350 compensation is set aside; petitioner retains entitlement to the interim amount of Rs. 25,000 without further recovery.

Sr.Perpetua Vs Sivanandan — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

MFA.No. 160 of 2002(D)

¶6

¶7

OPMV.408/1994 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, WAYAND, KALPETTA

¶8

APPELLANT: PETITIONER

¶9

¶10

SR.PERPETUA, AGED 51 YEARS, D/O. SCARIA VINCENTGIRI CONVENT, MANATHAVADY P.O., MANATHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.N.J.ANTONY

¶12

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS

¶13

¶14

(*) 1. SIVANANDAN S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 45 YEARS NANNATHU VEEDU, NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE. (DRIVER OF K.S.R.T.C. BUS NO.T.A.325 DL.NO. NOT KNOWN). (STRUCK OUT)

¶15

THE GENERAL MANAGER, K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

(*)THE NAME OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT IS STRUCK OUT FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT VIDE ORDER DATED 20.11.2007 ON IA NO.2711/2007.

¶17

BY ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC

¶18

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 8.1.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J.

¶20

M.F.A.No.160 of 2002

¶21

Dated, this the 8^th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT

¶22

Petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.408/1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, Kalpetta is the appellant. The appellant sustained injuries in a motor Vehicle accident on 16.6.1994. She filed Original Petition claiming compensation, impleading the owner and driver of the stage carriage bus in which she was travelling. In the petition it was averred that the appellant lost upper two incisors (central). She filed a petition claiming compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act which was allowed and an amount of Rs.25,000/- was awarded as interim compensation. Subsequently the Tribunal passed a final award finding that the appellant is entitled to get only an amount of Rs.3,350/- as compensation. The respondents were allowed to recover the excess amount, if any, paid. Challenging that final award the petitioner herself has filed this appeal.

¶23

It is true that for passing an award under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act the petitioner has to prove that he/she sustained injuries which will come within the purview of Section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In this particular case the Tribunal found that the appellant sustained an injury which comes under Section 142 of the Act and an interim award was passed. That award become final and conclusive. The respondents did not file any appeal challenging

¶24

MFA No.160/2002 -: 2 :-

¶25

the interim award. The tribunal was not at all justified in reducing that amount in the final award. Tribunal awarded only Rs.3,000/- for pain and suffering. It did not award any amount for inconvenience, disability, loss of amenities, etc. So I am of the view that the final award passed by the Tribunal reducing the amount awarded as per interim award and permitting the respondents to recover the excess amount is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

¶26

In the result, appeal is allowed holding that the appellant is entitled to get compensation fixed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since that amount was already paid, the appellant is not entitled to recover any further amount. The respondents also cannot recover any amount from the appellant.

¶27

C.M.P.No.834/2002 in M.F.A.No.160/2002 will stand dismissed.

¶28

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE.

¶29

cks

¶30

MFA No.160/2002

¶31

K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.

-: 3 :-

M.F.A.No.160 of 2002

JUDGMENT

8^th January, 2008.

Sr.Perpetua v. Sivanandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sr.Perpetua v. Sivanandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syamanthakam Vs Gopalakrishnan

Punjab and Sind Bank. Kollam Vs K.Premachandran Pillai

Favourita International Vs Cyriac Joseph

T.M.Sidhique Vs John Jacon

Ganeshan Vs Mamiyil Karunakaran

M.S. Sreekumar Vs Union of India