IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA No. 816 of 2004()
1. K.J.BABY, KAVUNGUMOALLIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.V.ANIL KUMAR, MULLAPPALLIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. SIMON.K.K., ATTUMALIL HOUSE,
3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SMT.BETTY K.ALUKKA
For Respondent :SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :12/12/2006
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------
M.A.C.A.NO. 816 OF 2004
---------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of December,2006
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.2616 of 1998, on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam
is the appellant in this appeal. The appellant claimed
a sum of Rs.52,150/- as compensation, but it was
limited to Rs.25,000/-. On 22.2.1998, while the
appellant was travelling in an autorickshaw, owned by
one Anil Kumar and driven by Simon, the autorickshaw
capsized and the appellant sustained injuries. It is
stated in the claim petition that the appellant was
taken to Government Hospital, Kanjirappally and was
later referred to the Medical College Hospital,
Kottayam. He was referred back to the Government
Hospital, Kanjirappally and was discharged on
15.3.1998. It is also submitted that he underwent
outpatient treatment for two more months. The further
case of the appellant is that he is permanently
disabled and it has affected his earning power and
amenities of life.
M.A.C.A. NO. 816 OF 2004
:: 2 ::
2. Before the Tribunal, four cases were tried
together, including the one filed by the appellant.
Exts.A8, A9 and A10 were the documents produced by the
appellant herein. No oral evidence was adduced by any
of the claimants. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the appellant that the practice that was
being followed by the Tribunal was that the case would
be disposed of on the basis of the pleadings and
documentary evidence. Though I am not pronouncing
upon this contention, the fact remains that the
discussion in respect of the appellant’s case is
contained only in paragraph 10 of the Award wherein
there is no consideration of the case put forward by
the appellant in a proper manner. It is just stated
that none of the petitioners produced any document to
show the expenses of treatment and the claimants in
three cases were allowed a total compensation of
Rs.4,000/- each. On what basis the amount of
compensation was arrived at and fixed is not seen in
the award. There is no discussion at all as to the
M.A.C.A. NO. 816 OF 2004
:: 3 ::
various claims under different heads made by the
appellant. The wound certificate or the injuries noted
therein are not referred to. The award passed by the
Tribunal is, therefore, liable to be set aside and I do
so. The matter is remanded to the Claims Tribunal for
disposal afresh after affording an opportunity to both
parties to produce documents and to adduce evidence.
The Tribunal shall consider the different claims put
forward by the appellant and dispose of the same after
considering the documentary and oral evidence, if any,
in the case.
The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on
15.1.2007.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/