E.P.Titto (Minor) Aged 10 Years vs P.V.Rajan on 30 October, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 41 of 2004()


1. E.P.TITTO (MINOR) AGED 10 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. P.V.RAJAN S/O. VALLON,
                       ...       Respondent

2. P.V.MITHRAN S/O. VALLON,

3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.BABY

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN

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

 Dated :30/10/2008

 O R D E R
                            M.N.KRISHNAN, J
                        =====================
                          MACA No.41 OF 2004
                        =====================

                 Dated this the 30th day of October 2008

                               JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda in O.P.(MV)No.1279 of 1997. The

claimant, a 4 = year old boy sustained injuries in a road accident. He has

been awarded a compensation of Rs.30,000/-. Dissatisfied with the same the

claimant has come up in appeal.

2. The boy had sustained multiple abrasions over the left side of face,

parietal area and lips and had sustained injuries on the left frontal sub dural

haematoma. Learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the boy had

sustained fracture of the parietal bone which is revealed from the scan

report and it is noted by the Tribunal in the award itself. A disability

certificate of 15% was produced before the Tribunal, but the Doctor was not

examined and it was not issued by the hospital where the boy had

undergone treatment. The Tribunal directed the boy to be present in person

and on appearance as well as putting questions to the boy the Tribunal was

satisfied that there was no mental disorder to the boy and he was behaving

MACA 41/2004 -:2:-

normally. There is nothing to show regarding the loss of memory or the

slowness in educational field. When it is so, it is not possible for this Court

to interfere with the said award especially when a document which should

have been proved is not proved. Further, there is not even a scrap of paper

to show that the boy had undergone any treatment after he was discharged

from Little Flower Hospital. At the same time he was not neurologically

deficient. I do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the

Tribunal. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

Cdp/-