Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

E. RAMAN versus KUTHUKALLIL IBRAHIM

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


E. RAMAN v. KUTHUKALLIL IBRAHIM - MFA No. 960 of 2001 [2007] RD-KL 2070 (30 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MFA No. 960 of 2001()

1. E. RAMAN
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KUTHUKALLIL IBRAHIM
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER

For Respondent :SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :30/01/2007

O R D E R

(M.RAMACHANDRAN & S.SIRI JAGAN, JJ)

M.F.A.No.960 of 2001-D

Dated this the 30th day of January, 2007



JUDGMENT

Ramachandran, J:

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, while deciding a claim arising out of a motor accident, which happened on 22-05-1995, had awarded to the claimant in O.P.(MV). No.1578 of 1996 a total compensation of Rs.1,13,000/-. The appellant/petitioner has come up in appeal feeling aggrieved about the adequacy of the award of compensation.

2. The principal submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that when there were materials to indicate that as a driver he was earning Rs.15.000/- per month in Gulf countries during the relevant time. Tribunal had taken the yardstick for awarding compensation as Rs.3000/- as the monthly earning of the claimant. However, it has to be noticed that apart from producing a certificate there was no steps taken for proving the contents of the document and we find that criticism as against the Tribunal may not lie, since the Tribunal had adopted a realistic stand, by laying down that the average [MFA No.960 of 2001] -2- earnings of a driver is Rs.3000/- per month at least as per the Indian standards. It has also to be noticed that there is nothing to indicate that his profession was as a driver, going by the entries of his Passport, although benefit of doubt has been extended in favour of the claimant.

3. The doctor had certified the disability of the appellant at 4% and on the head of loss of earning power the appellant had been granted Rs.21,500/-; Rs.7000/- towards disability and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of employment.

4. It is difficult for us to accept the contention of the appellant that the income of Rs.15,000/- should have been taken as basis for computation of the compensation, or an enhancement is just or equitable. Evidently the appellant had failed to discharge his part of the duties. Consequently, the appeal will stand dismissed. M.RAMACHANDRAN

(JUDGE)

S.SIRI JAGAN

( JUDGE)

mks/ [MFA No.960 of 2001] -3- M.RAMACHANDRAN, &

S.SIRI JAGAN, JJ

M.F.A.No. 960 of 2001-D

JUDGMENT

30th day of January, 2007


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.