Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANISH, S/O. ANTONY, AGED 23 versus P.K. SUNNY, PULILCKAL HOUSE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ANISH, S/O. ANTONY, AGED 23 v. P.K. SUNNY, PULILCKAL HOUSE - MFA No. 632 of 2002 [2007] RD-KL 8709 (28 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MFA No. 632 of 2002()

1. ANISH, S/O. ANTONY, AGED 23,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. P.K. SUNNY, PULILCKAL HOUSE,
... Respondent

2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANACE CO.LTD.,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU

For Respondent :SRI.KKM.SHERIF

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN

Dated :28/05/2007

O R D E R

J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.

M.F.A.No.632 OF 2002 Dated 28th May, 2007

JUDGMENT

Koshy,J

. An eighteen year old youngster met with an accident by which he sustained bleeding injuries to the head. The wound certificate dated 14.5.1996 shows that it is a suspected head injury and referred to Medical College Hospital. He claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/=. According to him, he had hearing impairment due to the accident. A disability certificate was produced which only shows that there is visual disability to the extent of 20%. In the claim petition he had no case that visual capacity was affected. The claim was filed after seven months and in the disability certificate it is not stated that the above visual disability of 20% in one eye is the result of any motor accident. the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.27,400/=. In the absence of any materials to show that disability was due to the accident, no compensation was awarded for permanent disability. Tribunal also directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation and recover it from the insured i.e., the owner of the vehicle, as the driver had no driving licence. Considering the nature of injuries, we are of the view that just and reasonable compensation was awarded. There is no evidence MFA.632/2002 2 to show that 20% visual disability was caused due to the accident and, therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in not granting any compensation for the permanent disability. Considering the total amount awarded etc., we are of the view that no interference is required in the award. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY

JUDGE

K.P.BALACHANDRAN

JUDGE

tks


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.