High Court Kerala High Court

Puthenveettil Sammad vs K.Noushad on 11 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Puthenveettil Sammad vs K.Noushad on 11 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 175 of 2004()


1. PUTHENVEETTIL SAMMAD, S/O. MUHAMMED,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. K.NOUSHAD S/O. ABOOBACKER, KUTTIKATTIL
                       ...       Respondent

2. E.M.MUHAMMED RASHEED S/O. MOOSA,

3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU S. NAIR

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :11/02/2009

 O R D E R
                                   R. BASANT &
                 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
              ........................................................................
                          M.A.C.A. No. 175 OF 2004
              .........................................................................
                    Dated this the 11th February, 2009


                                  J U D G M E N T

Basant, J. :

The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us.

He had claimed an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for the

personal injuries suffered in an accident. The Tribunal initially

awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Later, on

an application to review the award filed by the claimant, the

Tribunal reviewed the earlier award and directed payment of Rs.

75,000/- as compensation. The claimant/appellant is aggrieved

by the impugned award.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a proper

award has not been passed in spite of acceptance of the prayer

for review. The Tribunal has not considered the claim

methodically and rationally. The amounts payable under

different heads have not been fixed. Not even an attempt has

M.A.C.A. No. 175 OF 2004

2

been made to ascertain the amount payable under different

heads, it is contended. A further opportunity may be granted for

adducing evidence before the Tribunal and the Tribunal may be

directed to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law,

after giving the parties an opportunity to adduce further

evidence, if any, it is submitted.

3. The third respondent, the Insurance Company has

entered appearance. The course suggested by the learned

counsel for the claimant/appellant has not been objected by the

learned counsel for the third respondent. We are satisfied that

the interests of justice would be eminently served by directing

the Tribunal to dispose of the matter afresh.

In the result:

(a) This appeal is allowed in part.

(b) The impugned award is set aside.

(c) The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter afresh

after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce further

evidence, if any, in support of their contentions.

(d) The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on

M.A.C.A. No. 175 OF 2004

3

30.03.2009.

(e) The Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment

forthwith to the Tribunal.

(f) There shall be a further direction to the Tribunal to

make every endeavor to dispose of the claim as expeditiously as

possible and at any rate, within a period of three months from

30.03.2009. Compliance shall be reported to this Court.

R. BASANT,
JUDGE.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk