Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHELLAMMA, D/O. KARTHYANI AMMA versus K.PRASANNAKUMARAN PILLAI

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


CHELLAMMA, D/O. KARTHYANI AMMA v. K.PRASANNAKUMARAN PILLAI - MFA No. 106 of 2003 [2007] RD-KL 10970 (22 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MFA No. 106 of 2003()

1. CHELLAMMA, D/O. KARTHYANI AMMA,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. K.PRASANNAKUMARAN PILLAI,
... Respondent

2. PRASANNAKUMARAN, S/O.KARUNAKARA PILLAI,

3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

For Petitioner :SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR

For Respondent :SRI.JOE KALLIATH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

Dated :22/06/2007

O R D E R

K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.


==================
M.F.A. No. 106 OF 2003

Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2007


========================


JUDGMENT

The claimant in O.P.(M.V). No.2380/1995, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam is the appellant. The appellant filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.One Lakh against the respondent. It was alleged that at about 10.00 a.m. on 19.3.1995, while she was walking through the road, a scooter bearing registration No. KRU 7858, which the 2nd respondent was riding, came in a rash or negligent manner and hit against the back side of her and she sustained injuries. The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the matter. The insurer alone contested the matter by disputing the accident and quantum of compensation. The appellant produced certain records to show that she sustained injuries in an accident involving scooter bearing registration No. KRU 7858 in which the 2nd respondent was riding. Ext.A1 is the copy of the FIR, Ext.A2 is the copy of the scene mahazar and Ext.A5 is the final report. It shows that 2nd respondent has charge sheeted. In the wound certificate M.F.A. No. 106 OF 2003 2 prepared, the time of accident stated was 9.15 a.m. whereas in the petition it was stated that the accident occurred at 10.00 a.m. The Tribunal took a view that if as a matter of fact, the petitioner sustained injuries at 10.00 a.m., there is no possibility of she being examined by the Doctor at 9.15 a.m. The Tribunal ought have given a chance to the appellant to explain the discrepancy regarding time. After perusing the evidence on record, I am of the view that the Tribunal should reconsider the matter. For that purpose the case has to go back. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal in O.P.(M.V). No.2380/1995, dismissing the claim is hereby set aside. The case is remanded. The Tribunal is directed to take O.P.(M.V).No.2380/1995 back to file, and dispose of the same afresh in accordance with law, after giving both sides an opportunity to amend the pleadings and adduce further evidence, if so advised. Parties shall appear before the court below on 16.07.2007. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

JUDGE.

bkn


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.