High Court Kerala High Court

Antu vs P.P.Davis on 26 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
Antu vs P.P.Davis on 26 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 2223 of 2006()


1. ANTU, S/O. ANTHONY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. P.P.DAVIS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ANOOP,

3. MANAGER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.BABY

                For Respondent  :SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH

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

 Dated :26/06/2008

 O R D E R
                            M.N.KRISHNAN, J
                         =====================
                          MACA No.2223 OF 2006
                         =====================

                   Dated this the 26th day of June 2008

                                JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda in O.P.(MV)No.1472 of 2000. The claimant

sustained dislocation of his right shoulder and he was admitted in the

hospital as an inpatient for a period of 2 days. The Tribunal has awarded a

compensation of Rs.24,070/-. It is against that decision the present appeal is

filed.

2. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant has produced

documents as per I.A.No.1570 of 2008. Those documents are produced to

show that on account of this dislocation again he had been readmitted in the

hospital on 27.12.2006 and discharged on 30.12.2006 and has incurred a

sum of Rs.37,391.50. The last document produced before the Tribunal was

the disability certificate which was of the year 2005. Whether these things

had become necessary on account of the injury sustained in the accident is a

larger question to be decided. Learned counsel for the appellant would

submit that if an opportunity is given to him he will be able to prove those

MACA 2223/2006 -:2:-

documents, examine the Doctor and convince the Tribunal regarding his

case. I feel an opportunity has to be given. It is also contended that on many

heads the compensation awarded is inadequate. The entire things can be

considered after giving equal opportunity to all concerned.

Therefore the award under challenge is set aside. I.A.No.1570 of

2008 is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh

consideration after permitting both sides to produce documentary as well as

oral evidence in support of their respective contentions.

The Registry is also directed to forward the documents produced

along with I.A.No.1570 of 2008 so that the Tribunal can consider the same

and dispose of the matter. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal

on 5.8.2008.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

Cdp/-