SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Mad) 254

S.MANIKUMAR
R. Kumaran – Appellant
Versus
Intek Security Systems (P) Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:A. Shanmugaraj, Advocate.
For the Respondents: None.

JUDGMENT

1. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the accident victim has sought for an enhancement. The accident has occurred on 09.01.2004. Though, he was a student, claiming himself to be a part-time accountant for shops and earned Rs.2,000/-, for the injuries, period of treatment and under other heads, he had claimed Rs.1,50,000/-.

2. On this day, when the matter came up for admission, Mr.A.Shanmugaraj, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that before the claims tribunal since both the respondents did not appear, the claims tribunal after passing an order, setting them exparte, proceeded to examine the appellant on 07.10.2011 as PW1 and posted the matter for passing orders. As the appellant suffered disability, he wanted to examine Dr.J.R.R.Thiyagarajan, who has issued the disability certificate and hence, filed a miscellaneous petition on 10.10.2011 for reopening the claim petition for the purpose of examining the doctor on his side. He further submitted that without passing any orders, on the said application, the claims tribunal, computed the compensation on the basis of Exs.P3 and P4, O.P. Chits, Ex.P5, Puthur Chits and Ex.P6, prescriptions and quantified









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top