Dismissed

Nishad v. v.Padmanabhan and Oriental Insurance

Kerala HC13 Oct 2016MACA/1895/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an Motor Accident Claims Appeal where the appellant sought enhanced compensation for vehicle damage. The court upheld the Tribunal's refusal to award further money beyond the partial insurance payment due to lack of evidence and records.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of compensation was dismissed; the impugned award of the Tribunal was upheld.

Nishad Vs v.Padmanabhan and Oriental Insurance — 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

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/21ST ASWINA, 1938

¶5

MACA.No. 1895 of 2011

¶6

OP(MV) 471/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE DATED 11-07-2011

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

NISHA, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.DASAN, KARAKKAD HOUSE, MARYKUNNU P.O., KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.E.NARAYANAN SRI.P.M.HARRIS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. V.PADMANABHAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, ARCHATHU HOUSE, PAYAVOOR P.O.,KANUR DITRICT (OWNER OF BUS KL-13- M-888) PIN-670 001.

¶12

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MARINA SHOPPING COMPLEX, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 141.

¶13

R2 BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

P.V.ASHA, J.

¶17

M.A.C.A.No.1895 of 2011-C

¶18

Dated this the 13^th day of October, 2016

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P(MV). No.471/2010, claiming enhancement in compensation, challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P(MV).No.471/2010 dismissing the O.P(MV). The claimant is the registered owner of a car bearing registration No.KL-11-K-2332. The accident occurred when a bus with registration No.KL-13-M-888 hit against the car in which the car sustained damage. The car was having insurance with Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd. Seeing that the said insurance company had already paid compensation for the damage sustained to the car, the tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the appellant had already received a sum of Rs.44,000/- from the insurance company and no further amount was liable to be paid by the 2^nd respondent, which is the insurer of the bus involved in the accident. From the award it is seen that the appellant had claimed a sum of Rs.98,000/- saying that

¶21

¶22

M.A.C.A.No.1895 of 2011-C

¶23

he had spent a sum of Rs.1,49,000/-.

¶24

Further it was found that the appellant did not produce any records to show that he had incurred any other expenditure for the repair of the vehicle. Seeing that the appellant had not produced any documents or examined any witness in support of his claim for any amount in excess of Rs.44,000/-, the tribunal dismissed the claim.

¶25

It is seen that the tribunal has entered into the findings referring to the survey report Ext.A1, the recommendations therein and the records available before it. Hence I do not find it

¶26

necessary to interfere with the findings of the tribunal.

¶27

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

¶30

rtr/

¶31

/true copy/

¶32

P.S to Judge

Nishad v. v.Padmanabhan and Oriental Insurance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishad v. v.Padmanabhan and Oriental Insurance

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

A.X.Benny Vs Wilson and Others

Shoukath Hussain Vs Chief Executive,K.H.W.W.Board

Priyamvada Priyadarsani Vs State of Kerala

Padmini Bhai Vs Dr. K.v.Krishnadas

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Maheswary and Another

Peraveen C.P. Vs the Authorised Officer