IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 645 of 2006()
1. K.V.SREEDHARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. M/S.ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :17/01/2007
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
--------------------------
C.R.P.NO. 645 OF 2006
-------------------------
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JANUARY, 2007
ORDER
Petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.629/2000 on the file of Munsiff Court,
Kannur. Respondents are defendants. Suit was filed for realisation of
the balance amount allegedly due to petitioner, as per the insurance
policy issued by respondent insurance Company. According to
petitioner because of the injury sustained in a motor accident,
petitioner was treated as an in-patient at Koyili hospital and thereafter
he was compelled to take complete bed rest and was disabled from
doing any job and as per the terms of the policy, petitioner is entitled
to compensation calculated at the rate of 1% of the total assured sum
of Rs.3,00,000/- from 24.7.99 to 3.10.99, but he was paid only
Rs.9,900/- and he is entitled to realise the balance as claimed in the
plaint. Respondents contested the claim. It was contended by them
that petitioner had received Rs.9,900/- towards full and final
settlement of the claim and in such circumstances, petitioner is not
entitled to any additional sum over and above, what was paid by
respondents and received by petitioner. It was also contended that
petitioner need take rest only for the period for which the
C.R.P.645/06 2
compensation was paid and it was based on the expert medical
opinion and therefore petitioner is not entitled to any further
amount.
2. Learned Munsiff on the evidence of PW1 on the side of
petitioner and Dws1 and 2 on the side of respondents and Exts.A1
to A4 and B1 to B6, held that petitioner received Rs.9,900/- towards
the full and final settlement and hence he is not entitled to claim
any further amount. Learned Munsiff also found that though
petitioner claimed that he was taking bed rest, he is not entitled to
compensation for the said period. Petitioner challenged that decree
and judgment in A.S.213/03 before Sub Court, Thalassery
3. In the appeal finding of learned Munsiff that petitioner
was not laid up for the period as claimed by him was set aside. But
finding that petitioner received Rs.9,900/- towards full and final
settlement of the claim was confirmed. It was also found petitioner
received Rs.9,900/- under cheque on 7.10.99 and the claim was
raised only on 24.7.2000. Learned Sub Judge dismissed the appeal
holding that petitioner is not entitled to the decree sought for.
4. This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of Code
of Civil Procedure as petitioner is not entitled to file a second appeal
in view of the bar under Section 102 of Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner was heard.
6. Arguments of learned Counsel appearing for petitioner
C.R.P.645/06 3
was that the finding of learned Sub Judge that petitioner raised the
claim for further amount only in July 2000 is against the evidence as
Ext.A3 communication sent by respondent refers about the letter
sent by petitioner on 10.12.99 and it is clear that the claim was
made immediately on receipt of the cheque and therefore the
finding of learned Sub Judge is unsustainable. It was argued that as
it was found that petitioner was taking bed rest as claimed by him,
the additional compensation sought for should have been granted.
7. On hearing learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, I
do not find any substantial question of law involved in this revision.
Learned Munsiff and learned Sub Judge on the evidence entered a
factual finding that towards the full and final settlement of the
claim, petitioner received Rs.9,900/- and so he is not entitled to
further compensation over and above Rs.9,900/- received by him
under Ext.B6. In such circumstances there is no illegality or
irregularity in the judgment of the trial Court or appellate Court. I
find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts
below.
Revision Petition is dismissed in limine.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE
Acd
C.R.P.645/06 4