Remanded

Sunil Kumar v. the Manager

Kerala HC16 Sept 2017MACA/157/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor accident claim appeal, the appellant challenged a meagre compensation award despite evidence of serious facial and skeletal injuries. The High Court, noting the discharged hospital records were favorable to the appellant, set aside the Tribunal's award and remitted the matter for fresh consideration and disposal.

What did the court decide?

The award of Rs.8,200 was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal, with the appellant directed to appear for such hearing.

Sunil Kumar Vs the Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/25TH BHADRA, 1939

¶5

MACA.NO. 157 OF 2014 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1396/2011 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM DATED 13-09-2013

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.DAMODHARAN, MEENATHIL VADAKKATHIL,VINAYAKA, KALLELIBHAGOM MURI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SIJU KAMALASANAN SMT.CHITHRA.S.BABU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶11

THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, KOLLAM-691001.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.A.R.GEORGE SRI.M.A.GEORGE

¶13

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

P.D. RAJAN, J.

¶16

M.A.C.A. No.157 of 2014

¶17

Dated this the 16^th day of September, 2017

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P.(M.V.) No.1396 of 2011 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident on 22.10.2009 at 10.00 p.m., near Kottaveettil junction at Karunagappally. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,200/- with 9% interest per annum from the date petition till realisation with proportionate cost. Being aggrieved by that, he preferred this appeal.

¶20

Appellant’s case is that on 22.10.2009 at about 10.00 p.m., while he was proceeding through Karunagappally-Sasthamcotta public road and when he reached near Kottaveettil junction, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-2/N-287 driven in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result, he sustained serious injuries. Immediately he was removed to hospital. In the trial court, the owner and driver of the vehicle

¶21

M.A.C.A. No.157 of 2014 2

¶22

were set ex-parte. The insurance company admitted the insurance of the vehicle. The petitioner did not adduce any oral evidence to prove the accident and injury. On the other hand, his documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A5.

¶23

In this context, I have considered Ext.A3, the

¶24

copy of the wound certificate, which shows that the petitioner sustained lacerated wound over left side of forehead 3x1x1 c.m., abrasions over left side of forehead and nose, nasal bleed and vital signs stable. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A. No.4830 of 2013 for reopening the evidence and I.A. No.4831 of 2013 for additional evidence. The learned tribunal dismissed those applications and awarded a meagre amount as compensation. The appellant contended that he was admitted in the S.N. Trust Medical Mission Hospital, Kollam and treated there as inpatient. He was discharged on 26.10.2009. The discharge card shows that the appellant sustained fracture Maxilla, orbital bone and zygoma. Considering the nature of injuries, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to get just amount as

¶25

M.A.C.A. No.157 of 2014 3

¶26

compensation. Apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [2011 ACJ 1] it was held that in a motor accident claims petition, the victim is entitled to get just amount as compensation. In the light of the above said injuries, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam and the order in I.A. No.4830 of 2013 and I.A. No.4831 of 2013 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration. The learned Tribunal is directed to reconsider I.A. No.4830 of 2013 and I.A. No.4831 of 2013 afresh and dispose of the matter as per law. The appellant is directed to appear before the tribunal on 31.10.2017.

¶27

This MACA is disposed of as above.

¶28

Sd/- P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE

¶29

/ True Copy /

¶30

P.A. To Judge

¶31

Sunil Kumar v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Majeed C.A. Vs Dishi

Sainaba Vs Noushad Cherukavil

Nandakumar Vs Sakeer

Uno Security Service Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

Sukumaran Achary Vs the Managing Director

A.M.Parameswaran Namboothiripad Vs Guruvayoor Devaswom Committee