High Court Kerala High Court

Anish vs P.K. Sunny on 28 May, 2007

Kerala High Court
Anish vs P.K. Sunny on 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