Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHINY versus T.M.BENNY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SHINY v. T.M.BENNY - MFA No. 1419 of 1996(A) [2007] RD-KL 6327 (27 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MFA No. 1419 of 1996(A)

1. SHINY
... Petitioner

Vs

1. T.M.BENNY
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE

For Respondent :SRI.N.ANILKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

Dated :27/03/2007

O R D E R

K.Padmanabhan Nair,J.

M.F.A.No.1419 of 1996-F

Dated, this the 27th day of March, 2007



JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the petitioners in O.P.(M.V.). No.128 of 1991 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. They filed petition claiming compensation against the respondents alleging that the 1st petitioner sustained an injury in a motor vehicle accident. It is averred that at about 11.00 A.M. on 21.10.1991 she was hit by a lorry being registration No.KRR 3756 and sustained injuries. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry. The owner did not appear and contest. The driver and Insurer contested the matter. It was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver. The existence of valid policy was admitted by the Insurer. The Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the petitioners failed to establish that the 1st petitioner sustained any injury in a motor vehicle accident.

2. On the side of the appellants-petitioners, they produced Exhibit A4 certificate, which shows that the 1st appellant had sprain on right ankle and she was advised to take M.F.A.No.1419 of 1996 rest from 21.10.1990 to 10.12.1990. Exhibit X1 produced at the instance of the Insurer shows that the 1st appellant was admitted in St.Thomas' Hospital, Malayattoor with a history of 'fall' and she had pain and swelling on the right ankle and there was fracture to the tip of tibia. The doctor who treated the 1st appellant was examined. He has stated that the alleged history was stated as due to fall. It is true that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the lorry. But, the case was registered on a private complaint filed long after the incident. Though the appellants examined two witnesses, the Tribunal rejected their evidence. I do not think, it will be just and proper to find that the appellant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident solely based on the oral evidence of witnesses. It cannot be said that the finding of the Tribunal is illegal or unsustainable. The appeal is only to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. K.Padmanabhan Nair Judge vku/-


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.