Remanded

Kamalamma v. Ponraj

Kerala HC22 Nov 2016MACA/1620/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala remanded an appeal challenging a motor accident compensation award to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The court held that additional medical documents produced before the appellate court must be considered by the Tribunal, as the other party was not given an opportunity to contest them during the initial award.

What did the court decide?

The matter remanded to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to consider claims based on additional documents produced before the High Court, with notice to respondents.

Kamalamma Vs Ponraj — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

MACA.No. 1620 of 2014 ()

¶6

------------------------OP(MV).NO. 378/2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

KAMALAMMA, AGED 61 YEARS, D/O.CHELLAMMA, ASARIVILA VEEDU, THETTIKUZHY TOWN WARD, KOTTAKONAM CHERY, PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. PONRAJ, 15/299, KUDISIKAVILAGAM, KARALI, PARASALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 046

¶12

2. MUTHU PANDIAN.P., S/O.PAUL PANDIAN NADAR, 51/E, ELAYA NAINARKULAM, THALAPATHISAMUDRAM, NANGUNERI.T.K., PIN-627 101.

¶13

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 3/33BPPK BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, MARTHANDAM -629 165.

¶14

R3 BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD

¶15

SMT.D.GEETHA SMT.K.SHERIN MOHAN

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

P.V.ASHA J.

¶19

-------------------------------------------M.A.C.A.No.1620 of 2014

¶20

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

¶21

Dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2016

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The appellant is the injured in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 27.03.2003. The appeal is filed seeking enhancement in compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam in O.P.(M.V).No.378/2011. The appellant submits that the Tribunal did not take into account the very serious head injuries sustained to her, while awarding the compensation and referred to only the following injuries:

¶24

(1) Lacerated wound on the scalp frontal region

¶25

(2) Abrasion right side of face

¶26

(3) Clinically fracture right had wrist

¶27

The appellant filed an additional affidavit before this Court producing the discharge card from the Medical College hospital, Thiruvananthapuam along with the scan report dated 27.03.2010 and submits that there was a fracture up to floor of anterior cranial fossa. It was pointed out that petitioner underwent treatment for the same, it could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal.

¶28

I heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶29

It is seen that the additional documents produced before this Court were not available before the Tribunal when the award

¶30

M.A.C.A.No.1620 of 2014

¶31

¶32

was passed. When the petitioner claims compensation on the basis of certain materials, it is necessary that the other party also gets an opportunity to raise its contention as against the additional documents produced.

¶33

In the above circumstances, I remit the matter back to the Tribunal for considering the claims of the petitioner on the basis of the additional documents. Since the Tribunal has already passed an award allowing compensation of Rs.14,850/-, that part of the award will not be disturbed. Tribunal will consider the claim of the appellant, on the basis of the additional documents, which petitioner shall produce before the Tribunal.

¶34

It is also to be noted that when this appeal was admitted this Court had directed that the appellant would not be entitled to claim interest for the enhanced compensation, if any, for the period of delay of 219 days. The Tribunal shall also take into consideration of this aspect. Since it is pointed out that the appellant is aged 64 years, the Tribunal shall see that it is disposed of within a period of 'three months' from the date of appearance, i.e., 04.01.2017.

¶35

Parties shall appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam on 04.01.2017.

¶36

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶39

Kamalamma v. Ponraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamalamma v. Ponraj

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

S.P.Natarajan Vs Fousiya

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Abdul Hakkem @ Hakkim

V.Ulahannan Vs State of Kerala and Others

Dr.v.Jayaprakashan Vs Kerala Agricultural University

Ramankutty Vs the District Collector, Palakkad

P.N.Balaram Vs Land Acquisition Officer and Special