Review petitioners sought review of a Motor Accident case compensation order, alleging the court failed to consider loss of sense of smell despite a treatment certificate being in evidence. The review petition was dismissed.
Review petition not admitted and dismissed without any costs to be awarded.
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.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/14TH ASWINA, 1937
RP.No. 746 of 2015 () IN MACA.557/2010
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN MACA 557/2010 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 05-06-2015)
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
JASMINE NOUSHAD
MANTHOPPIL (H), PUTHENANGADI, VARANAN P.O ALLEPPEY DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
R2 BY ADV.SMT.S.JAYASREE
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
C.T.RAVIKUMAR & K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.
R.P.No.746 of 2015 in M.A.C.A.No.557 of 2010
Dated 6th October, 2015
ORDER
Jyothindranath, J.
This review petition is preferred aggrieved by the judgment of this Court dated 5.6.2015 in M.A.C.A.No.557 of 2010. The grievance of the review petitioner is that while judgment was delivered, this Court had not given due consideration to the fact that the petitioner herein sustained a head injury and in consequence of the same there was loss of sense of smell. It is also the case that even though a treatment certificate was marked before the Tribunal as Ext.A7, the said document was not called before this Court and perused the same. It is the case of the review petitioner that now, a copy of the said document is available with the petitioner which can be perused by the court. It is the grievance that the gravity of the injury sustained as well as the fact that the petitioner lost the sense of smell are not given due consideration by the court.
The accident occurred in the year 2003 that is, on 29.9.2003 at
R.P.No.746 of 2015 in M.A.C.A.No.557 of 2010
2
10.10 a.m. While hearing the M.A.C.A this Court considered the fact that there was loss of sense of smell. After perusing the impugned award this Court found that the compensation awarded on the heads of pain and suffering' as well as loss of amenities' are on a lower side. Considering all these aspects as just compensation 42,112/- awarded₹ by this Court surely, with interest from the date of petition. Even though the petitioner got a case that this Court has not considered the loss of amenities, it can be seen that due consideration is given on the aspect of loss of amenities and an enhancement is given. Under such circumstances, there is no merit in this review petition. Hence not admitted, dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge
Sd/-
K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH Judge
TKS
// True copy //
P.S. to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the review petition raising grievance about non-consideration of loss of sense of smell and insufficient compensation deserves admission.
Jasmine Noushad
K K Nazeer @ Nazarudheen
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
C.T. Ravikumar
K.P. Jyothindranath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
