Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHAMMED MUHSIN, AGED 8 YEARS (MINOR) versus SUBRAHMANYAN V.K., S/O. CHATHAN

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MOHAMMED MUHSIN, AGED 8 YEARS (MINOR) v. SUBRAHMANYAN V.K., S/O. CHATHAN - MACA No. 19 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 2581 (5 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA No. 19 of 2007()

1. MOHAMMED MUHSIN, AGED 8 YEARS (MINOR),
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SUBRAHMANYAN V.K., S/O. CHATHAN,
... Respondent

2. HUSSAIN P.K., S/O. P.K. ENTHEEN,

3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

For Petitioner :SRI.PROMY KAPRAKKATT

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :05/02/2007

O R D E R

M. RAMACHANDRAN & S.SIRI JAGAN, JJ.

M.A.C.A.NO. 19 OF 2007

Dated this the 5th day of February, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Ramachandran, J.

An eight year old boy had sustained injuries, on 27.11.2002, as a speedy bus had hit him while he was on the road margin. He had been hospitalised and his relatives had spent a considerable amount of money for his treatment. There was certificate issued by the Medical Attendant that he had suffered partial ankylosis of the left ankle and had sustained 10% disability. Taking notice of the evidence that had been let in, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation. The permanent disability was assessed at Rs.22,500/- and the other major heads of compensation were in respect of pain and suffering (Rs.10,000/-), medical bills (Rs.11,500) and expenses of bystander (Rs.4100). This appeal has been filed by the minor wherein there is a contention that better compensation ought to have been awarded and the multiplier relied on by the Tribunal is low. MACA NO.19 OF 2007

2. However, a reading of the order indicates that the Tribunal had borne in mind the nature of the injury, disability and the multiplier appropriately. We are not impressed by the arguments of the learned counsel that it was a case where higher compensation for pain and suffering or for disablement ought to have been granted. The medical bills have been adequately taken notice of and the normal standards and the methodology is seen to have been accepted by the Tribunal. It cannot be faulted. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed in limine. M. RAMACHANDRAN

(JUDGE)

S.SIRI JAGAN

(JUDGE)

Mbs/ MACA NO.19 OF 2007 M. RAMACHANDRAN &

S. SIRI JAGAN, JJ

W.P.(FC).NO. OF 200

J U D G M E N T

MACA NO.19 OF 2007

DATED: -11-2006


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.