Remanded

Soman.K.C. v. Vishala

Kerala HC19 May 2016MACA/518/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against OPMV award of Rs.2,31,500 following a motor accident injury claim. The High Court found the Tribunal failed to provide reasons for the low disability percentage and bill acceptance despite production of evidence. The matter is remanded for fresh assessment of just compensation.

What did the court decide?

The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for reassessment of just compensation with directions to adduce further evidence and retain any awarded amount subject to outcome.

Soman.K.C. Vs Vishala — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2016/29TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶6

MACA.No. 518 of 2012 ()

¶7

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 360/2007 of M.A.C.T., PALAKKAD DATED 14-11-2011

¶8

APPELLANT/APPLICANT:

¶9

SOMAN.K.C. 47 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAPPA @ ARUMUGHAN, CHUNGATH HOUSE, POLPAKKARA POST, EDAPPAL VIA, MALAPPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. VISHALA W/O.BHASKARAN, KARUNEKKATTU HOUSE, KALADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (OWNER OF MINI TIPPER LORRY KL 54378)-679582.

¶13

2. UMMER K.V.

¶14

28 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAAHAMED, KELAMVALAPPIL, ALATHUR P.O., PONNANI, DRIVER OF THE MINI TIPPER LORRY KL 54-378)676541.

¶15

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, POST BOX NO.8, JYOTHY SUPER BAZAR, THODUPUZHA, (INSURER OF MINI TIPPER LORRY KL-54-378) 685584.

¶16

R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

C.T.RAVIKUMAR & K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.

¶19

¶20

M.A.C.A.No.518 OF 2012

¶21

- - - - Dated this the 19^th day of May , 2015

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Jyothindranath, J.

¶24

This is an appeal preferred by the claimant/injured in O.P.(MV) No.360/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. It was an injury claim. The appellant sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 30.11.2006. The appellant was travelling as a pillion rider on a bike bearing Reg.No.KL-01 Y/4820. The rider of the bike stopped the vehicle at the southern tar end of the road. At that time, a tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-54/378 which came from the opposite direction hit against the bike and in that accident, the appellant sustained severe injuries. Alleging negligence on the side of the driver of the lorry, the above mentioned claim petition was moved for a total compensation of Rs.12 lakhs.

¶25

After considering the materials before the Tribunal, the

¶26

MACA No.518/2012 2

¶27

Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,31,500/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, this appeal is preferred.

¶28

When the appeal came up for hearing, the main submission

¶29

of the learned counsel for the appellant is that even though a disability certificate showing 20% disability sustained by the appellant was produced, only 5% was taken by the Tribunal. The second argument advanced before us is that even though medical bills for more than Rs. 4 lakhs were produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal considered and allowed only Rs.1,55,700/-.

¶30

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted before us that the disability certificate was procured by the appellant directly from the Board and further no reason is seen therein for fixing such a high percentage of disability. It is also pointed out that the only injury shown therein is the fracture of tibia. By no stretch of imagination, can it be said that such a disability will be caused by a united fracture of tibia. The learned counsel further submitted before us that after perusal of the bills, a sum of Rs.155,700/- is seen awarded.

¶31

We have perused the award. It can be seen that no reason is

¶32

MACA No.518/2012 3

¶33

seen shown for accepting bills for Rs.1,55,700/- only and further it is seen written in paragraph 17 as follows :

¶34

“Hence, on a just estimate, he is granted an amount of Rs.6,240/- towards transportation expense. He has also produced medical bills which contains advance bills also. The actual amount excluding such bills comes to Rs.1,55,700/-.”

¶35

After going through the documents, we feel that this is a case where remand of the case for a proper consideration of the matter is warranted. It is also made clear that prima facie advance bills for such a large amount is also not seen produced in the bills. Thus, considering all these aspects, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for re-assessment of just compensation. It is made clear that both parties are entitled to adduce further evidence in this case. It is also made clear that if any compensation amount already received in satisfaction of the set aside award, the said amount can be retained by the appellant for the time being, on condition that he will reimburse the same or receive the balance amount, subject to the outcome of the claim petition after the order of remand.

¶36

MACA No.518/2012

¶37

¶38

With the above observation and direction, this matter is remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 11.07.2016.

¶39

The Registry shall send back the records along with the judgment.

¶40

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶41

K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JUDGE

¶42

sv.

Soman.K.C. v. Vishala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soman.K.C. v. Vishala

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

Alphonsa Sindhu.M.a Vs Rajasree.v.M

The Regional Director, E.S.I.Corpn., Vs Sterling Gases Ltd.

Liju Mathew Vs the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd

Navas Vs G. Ragupathy

Anila Vs the Manager

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Vishnu.S.Sasi