Br.Joby vs M.P.Sojan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7568 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

    THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                          MACA.No.863 OF 2008

  AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 2212/2001 DATED 23-10-2007 OF MOTOR
               ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM


APPELLANT/S:

                BR.JOBY
                AGED 30 YEARS
                S/O.K.V.ANTONY, VINCENTIAN VIDHYA BHAVAN,,
                U.C.COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA, NOW RESIDING AT, VINCENTIAN
                HOUSE, CHRITHU NIVAS, B.M.C.P.O.,, KOCHI - 682 021.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
                SMT.ANILA PETER
                SMT.K.N.RAJANI

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         M.P.SOJAN
                MELEKUDY HOUSE, VI/246, NEELESWARAM P.O., ERNAKULAM
                DISTRICT.

      2         K.S.RANJAN KALAVAMPARA HOUSE
                NEELESWARAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT.

      3         THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
                REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,, BRANCH OFFICE,
                PALARIVATTOM.

                R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR
                R1, R3 BY ADV. SMT.LINTA VARGHESE

     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 04.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA.No.863 OF 2008                   2


                           P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                   -----------------------------------------------
                          M.A.C.A. No.863 of 2008
                        --------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 4th day of March, 2021


                                    JUDGMENT

The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No. 2212/2001 on the

file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. It was a claim

filed under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. The short facts are like this :

On 4.12.2000, the appellant who was travelling in a mini bus

owned, driven and insured with respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3

respectively along Kollam-Alappuzha National Highway road,

sustained bodily injuries when it was hit by a lorry from behind.

Because of this accident, the appellant sustained bodily injuries and

she was taken to the hospital. According to the appellant, the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2 nd

respondent. Therefore, the appellant claimed that the respondents 1

to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

3. To substantiate the case, Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on

side of the claimant. After going through the documents and

pleadings, the Tribunal passed an award of Rs.82,000/-. Aggrieved by

the quantum of compensation, this appeal is filed.

4. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the

Insurance Company.

5. The main contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal

has not considered the disability certificate issued by the Medical

Board. The counsel submitted that a consolidated amount of

Rs.15,000/- is given towards discomfort and inconvenience. The

appellant was a seminari student. Now, an application is filed by the

appellant to accept additional documents as I.A. No.1/2021. These are

medical bills in connection with the subsequent treatment of the

appellant. According to the appellant, some of the medical bills were

misplaced and it was not produced before the court.

6. The counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the

medical bills are to be verified and for that purpose, the matter may

be remanded to the Tribunal. The counsel submitted that there is

dispute regarding some of the bills.

7. After hearing both sides, according to me, this matter can

be send back to the Tribunal, with a direction to consider the

additional documents now produced in this appeal and also consider

the grievance of the appellant that the compensation awarded is

inadequate. I don't want to make any observation about the merit of

the case. The claim of the appellant for the enhanced compensation is

left open. The appellant will be allowed to give additional evidence, if

any. If there is no additional evidence, the Tribunal will consider the

matter afresh and decide whether the appellant is entitled any

additional compensation. There can be a direction to the Tribunal to

dispose the matter within a time limit, because O.P.(M.V.) was filed in

2001.

8. Therefore, this MACA is allowed in the following manner.

1) The order dated 23.10.2007 in O.P.(M.V.) No.2212/2001 is set

aside and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is directed to

restore the above O.P.(M.V.).

2) The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam will allow the

parties to adduce further evidence.

3) The Registry will forward the additional documents produced

before this Court in I.A.No.1/2021 to the Tribunal along with the

LCR.

4) The Tribunal will consider the additional documents produced

before this Court also while considering the claim for additional

compensation. The compensation already awarded will be

adjusted while passing final order.

5) The Tribunal will dispose the claim petition as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate, within 3 months from the date of receipt of

a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS