Jasmine Noushad v. K K Nazeer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/14TH ASWINA, 1937 RP.No. 746 of 2015 () IN MACA.557/2010 ---------------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN MACA 557/2010 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 05-06-2015) REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

--------------------------------------------------- JASMINE NOUSHAD MANTHOPPIL (H), PUTHENANGADI, VARANAN P.O ALLEPPEY DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

-----------------------------------------------------

1. K K NAZEER @ NAZARUDHEEN, RAHMATH MANZIL, NORTH ARYAD, ALAPPUZHA, 688 005.

2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, 688 001 R2 BY ADV.SMT.S.JAYASREE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.T.RAVIKUMAR & K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.

-------------------------------- R.P.No.746 of 2015 in M.A.C.A.No.557 of 2010 -------------------------------- Dated 6th October, 2015

ORDER

Jyothindranath, J.

This review petition is preferred aggrieved by the judgment of this Court dated 5.6.2015 in M.A.C.A.No.557 of 2010. The grievance of the review petitioner is that while judgment was delivered, this Court had not given due consideration to the fact that the petitioner herein sustained a head injury and in consequence of the same there was loss of sense of smell. It is also the case that even though a treatment certificate was marked before the Tribunal as Ext.A7, the said document was not called before this Court and perused the same. It is the case of the review petitioner that now, a copy of the said document is available with the petitioner which can be perused by the court. It is the grievance that the gravity of the injury sustained as well as the fact that the petitioner lost the sense of smell are not given due consideration by the court.

2. We heard the review petitioner in this case.

3. Originally, the Tribunal awarded 32,112/- as compensation. ₹ The accident occurred in the year 2003 that is, on 29.9.2003 at

R.P.No.746 of 2015 in M.A.C.A.No.557 of 2010 10.10 a.m. While hearing the M.A.C.A this Court considered the fact that there was loss of sense of smell. After perusing the impugned award this Court found that the compensation awarded on the heads of `pain and suffering' as well as `loss of amenities' are on a lower side. Considering all these aspects as just compensation 42,112/- awarded ₹ by this Court surely, with interest from the date of petition. Even though the petitioner got a case that this Court has not considered the loss of amenities, it can be seen that due consideration is given on the aspect of loss of amenities and an enhancement is given. Under such circumstances, there is no merit in this review petition. Hence not admitted, dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge Sd/- K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH Judge TKS // True copy // P.S. to Judge