M.V.Varkey vs Viswanatha Pillai on 14 July, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

M.V.Varkey vs Viswanatha Pillai on 14 July, 2008

Bench: M.N.Krishnan

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 388 of 2005()


1. M.V.VARKEY, S/O. VARKEY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. VISWANATHA PILLAI,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.ANILKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :14/07/2008

 O R D E R
                           M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                           --------------------------
                        M.A.C.A. No. 388 OF 2005
                              ---------------------
                 Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008

                                JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, in OP(MV) 373/03. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation with 6% interest. It is against that decision, the appeal is preferred by the claimant.

2. Though notice was served, the respondent did not enter appearance. The contention of the respondent was that he was not the owner cum driver of the vehicle. It is the case of the claimant that while travelling in a car owned and driven by the respondent the vehicle fell into a gutter as a result of which he sustained fracture of the transverse process of LI to LIV of the spine with some minor injuries. The Tribunal found that the respondent is the owner cum driver in the light of the police documents produced and also came to the conclusion that the vehicle was not insured. Except the wound certificate, nothing else was produced to show the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. The claimant also did not mount the box MACA N0.388/05 2 to give any evidence. So taking into consideration the materials available the Tribunal had awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation. There is nothing to show what was the real suffering undergone by the claimant or what is the period of hospitalisation. Therefore it has to be held that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation on the basis of the materials placed before it, which does not call for any interference.

The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.





                                            M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps

MACA N0.388/05    3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court