Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRADEEP S/O. KUMARAN versus P.R.JAINISAN S/O. P.K.RAGHAVAN

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PRADEEP S/O. KUMARAN v. P.R.JAINISAN S/O. P.K.RAGHAVAN - MACA No. 502 of 2003 [2007] RD-KL 17352 (14 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA No. 502 of 2003()

1. PRADEEP S/O. KUMARAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. P.R.JAINISAN S/O. P.K.RAGHAVAN,
... Respondent

2. N.C.SUNIL LAL, NJATTUVETY HOUSE,

3. DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.BABY

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

Dated :14/09/2007

O R D E R

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J.

M.A.C.A.No.502 of 2003

Dated, this the 14th day of September, 2007



JUDGMENT

The claimant in O.P.(MV) No.665/1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda is the appellant. Appellant filed Original Petition claiming compensation alleging that at about 9.30 p.m. on 15.9.1994 while he was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL 8 D 2243 he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle. Initially first respondent alone was impleaded. Subsequently respondents 2 and 3 were impleaded as the registered owner and insurer of the motor cycle. Respondents 1 and 2 did not contest. Third respondent insurer filed written statement contending that no accident took place as alleged by the appellant. Quantum of compensation claimed was also disputed. Tribunal found that if the appellant is to be awarded compensation he was entitled to get Rs.17,300/-. But the Original Petition was dismissed on the ground that the appellant failed to prove negligence. The only document produced to prove negligence was Ext.A1, treatment-cum-discharge certificate issued by St. James Hospital, Chalakudy. At the time of oral evidence appellant deposed that accident occurred at midnight while he was travelling as pillion rider in a bike bearing registration No.KL8 D 2249. Number of the vehicle given in the Original Petition was KL 8 D 2243 and the time of accident was at MACA No.502/2003 -: 2 :- 9.30 p.m. No intimation was issued from the hospital to the police. No FIR was registered. According to the appellant he filed a private complaint. When case records were called for it was reported that records were destroyed. The finding of the Tribunal that the appellant failed to prove the negligence alleged is a finding of fact which does not call for any interference. So I do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is only to be dismissed. In the result, appeal is dismissed. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR,

JUDGE.

cks MACA No.502/2003 -: 3 :-

K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.

M.A.C.A.No.502 of 2003

JUDGMENT

14th September, 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.