Surendran Nair vs Rajesh on 28 October, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 1722 of 2007()


1. SURENDRAN NAIR, SON OF NEELAKANTA PILLAI
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. RAJESH, SON OF SOMASEKHARA KURUP,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SURENDRA KURUP, SON OF DAMODARAN PILLAI,

3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)

                For Respondent  :SRI.LAL GEORGE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :28/10/2008

 O R D E R
                        M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                        --------------------------
                   M.A.C.A No. 1722 OF 2007
                          ---------------------
             Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008

                            JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam, in OP(MV) 1135/99. The

claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal

awarded him a compensation of Rs.80,000/- with 9% interest.

Aggrieved by that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal for

enhancement of compensation.

2. The main grievance of the claimant is that on account of the

accident he had sustained very severe injuries and that during the

pendency of that application he had filed an application for

amendment by enhancing the claim to Rs.4,00,0000/-.

3. Heard the counsel appearing for both sides. Learned

counsel would submit that as the records are not available here one

is not sure as to whether such an application has been filed and

whether it has been allowed or not. Even if it is allowed, it has not

been considered in the award because in the 2nd paragraph of the

MACA No. 1722/07
2

award the reference is made only to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration.

The award under challenge is set aside and the matter is

remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. If the

amendment application is already allowed, parties are permitted to

adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their

respective contentions. If the amendment application is not allowed,

let it be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the

Tribunal and then permit the parties to substantiate their contentions.

I make it clear that this will not prevent the party from getting the

amount, which is already awarded.

Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 11.12.08.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps

MACA No. 1722/07
3