Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.SHAMEER, S/O.P.P.KHADER versus K.C.GEETHA, W/O.MOHANAN

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.SHAMEER, S/O.P.P.KHADER v. K.C.GEETHA, W/O.MOHANAN - RP No. 576 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 11978 (4 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP No. 576 of 2007()

1. C.SHAMEER, S/O.P.P.KHADER,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. K.C.GEETHA, W/O.MOHANAN,
... Respondent

2. MOUVANCHERI GOPALAN,

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,

For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN

For Respondent :SRI.VPKPANICKER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

Dated :04/07/2007

O R D E R

P.R.RAMAN & ANTONY DOMINIC JJ. R.P.NO.576 OF 2007 IN CROSS OBJECTION 80 OF 2006 IN M.A.C.A.NO.2121 OF 2005

Dated this the 4th day of July, 2007

O R D E R

Raman,J.

This petition is filed seeking review of the judgment rendered in M.A.C.A.No.2121/05 and Cross Objection No.80/06. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the absence of a permission granted under Section 170 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company could not raise any ground other than those specified under Section 149 (2) of the Act in any appeal they could file against the award. Same inhibition applies to the cross objection also. In so far as no such permission under Section 170 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act was obtained by the Insurance Company, it is contended that no reduction in the percentage of disability could have been made by this Court while disposing the matter.

2. We have heard both sides.

3. It is true that a cross appeal or cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 could be filed against the award by raising such grounds which could have taken in the appeal. But in this case no error apparent on the face of the record has crept in, since in the appeal filed by the R.P.NO.576/2007 claimant, his specific contention was that the percentage of disability fixed by the court below at 15% was low and it is at his instance that this Court at the time of admission referred the matter to the Medical Board and the Medical Board has forwarded their certificate to this Court certifying the disability at 10%. This Court, instead of remanding the matter and to avoid further delay, considered the said certificate and granted relief. We do not find any ground for review. Review Petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. kcv.


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.