Allowed

K.O.Sabu v. C.M.Mathew

Kerala HC4 Jan 2008MACA/1180/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. It set aside the award directing the appellant to pay Rs.28,000 and remanded the case for fresh disposal after affording parties an opportunity to amend pleadings and adduce evidence, citing flaws in the Tribunal's procedure.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal award of Rs.28,000 was set aside; the case remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after affording parties an opportunity to amend pleadings and adduce evidence.

K.O.Sabu Vs C.M.Mathew — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

MACA.No. 1180 of 2007(K)

¶6

-----------------------OPMV.1155/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶8

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

¶9

K.O.SABU, KANDALLOOR HOUSE, MEPPURATH HOUSE, THURUTHIKKADU, MALAPPILLY, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX

¶11

RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT & 2ND RESPONDENT:

¶12

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

¶13

1. C.M.MATHEW,

¶14

CHARAROOPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALAKUZHY P.O., EZHUMATTOOR MURI & VILLAGE.

¶15

2. GEORGE THOMAS, S/O. A.T.GEORGE, ARANGATTU HOUSE, MARAMON P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.PADMANABHAN NAIR,J

¶18

======================= M.A.C.A.No.1180 of 2007

¶19

==========================

¶20

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2008

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The first respondent in O.P.(M.V).1155/1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, is the appellant. This appeal is filed by the first respondent challenging the award passed by the Tribunal by which the appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.28,000/- as compensation to the petitioner.

¶23

The petitioner filed O.P.(M.V).1155/98 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, claiming compensation against the appellant and second respondent. It was alleged that on 26.12.1996 at about 12 noon the petitioner was walking along the Thiruvalla Pushpagiri Hospital road and at that time a Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KLB-6332 in which the appellant was riding came in a rash or negligent manner and hit against the petitioner and he sustained injuries. The second respondent was impleaded as he was the registered owner of the vehicle. The appellant filed a written statement contending that his vehicle was not involved in the accident. The case of the first

¶24

M.A.C.A.No.1180/2007

¶25

¶26

respondent that on 26.12.1996 the motor cycle which the appellant was riding hit against the person of the petitioner was a false case. It was contended that on 20^th December 1996 one Chandran Pillai, Head Constable of the Thiruvalla Police Station demanded money from the appellant. The appellant refused to pay any money. Hence the Head constable became enemical towards the appellant and falsely implicated him in this case. It was averred that on 24.12.1996 the appellant went to Ranni and came back to Thiruvalla only on 27.12.1996. It was further averred that on 18.11.1997 the police constable Chandran Pillai came to the house of the appellant and ask him to produce the bike before the police station as the same was involved in an accident. It was further averred that the appellant told that his vehicle was not involved in an accident. Appellant made enquiries and found out that he was falsely implicated in a criminal case on 28.12.1998. The appellant filed a criminal complaint before the Thiruvalla Police alleging that he was falsely implicated in this case. No action was initiated and appellant was never told as to what action the police had taken

¶27

M.A.C.A.No.1180/2007

¶28

¶29

in his petition. It was averred that a report was filed alleging that appellant was punishable under Section 279,337 and 338 IPC and also under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicle Act. He appeared before the criminal court and after the trial, court found the appellant innocent and acquitted him. It was also averred that on receipt of the notice from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the appellant appeared before the Tribunal and filed a detailed statement disputing his liability. It was averred that in the written statement it was specifically averred that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case by Head constable Chandran Pillai. It was further averred that in the O.P.(M.V.) appellant filed I.A.970/2007 seeking permission to examine himself as a witness and also the petitioner in order to bring the true facts. That application was filed on 13.3.2007. Tribunal dismissed that application on the same day. Thereafter the appellant field I.A.1092/2007 to grant some time to challenge the order passed in I.A.970/2007. That application was also dismissed on the date on which it was filed and the Tribunal found that the appellant was negligent and directed him to pay

¶30

M.A.C.A.No.1180/2007

¶31

¶32

compensation. Challenging that award this appeal is filed.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued before me that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is argued that the wound certificate was prepared at 12.45 on 26.12.1996. The allegation was that the petitioner was knocked down by a scooter and not by a motor bike. It is argued that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the liability of the appellant without giving an opportunity to the appellant to cross examine the persons who produced the documents. It is also argued that the vehicle of the appellant was never involved in any accident.

¶34

The allegation of the petitioner was that he sustained injuries at 12 noon of 26.12.1996. According to the petitioner the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KLB-6332 which the appellant was riding came and hit against his person. Immediately after the incident the victim was taken to Thiruvalla Hospital. The petitioner informed Doctor that he was knocked down by a scooter at 12.40.p.m. on 26.12.1996. It is also pointed out that though the accident occurred on 26.12.1996, FIR was registered

¶35

M.A.C.A.No.1180/2007

¶36

¶37

after 9 days i.e. on 4.1.1997. Admittedly, the vehicle was covered by a valid insurance. The specific case put forward by the appellant was that motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KLB-6332 was not involved in the accident. A criminal case was falsely registered against him. A reading of the award passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal did not consider any of the matters arising for consideration in its proper perspective. Merely because the appellant produced motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KLB-6332 before the police is not a ground to hold that that was the vehicle which was involved in the accident. According to the appellant a head constable of the police station was on enemical terms towards him and at his instance the case was registered against him after 9 days of the incident. Ext.A5 wound certificate shows that within 5 minutes time of the accident victim was taken to the Pushpagiri hospital. Tribunal went wrong in dismissing I.A.970/07 filed by the appellant seeking permission to lead evidence. It went wrong in placing reliance on the records without any proof. Ext.B1 judgment produced by the appellant shows that before the criminal court

¶38

M.A.C.A.No.1180/2007

¶39

¶40

he raised a plea of alibie and that defence was accepted by the criminal court. So I am of the view that it is only just and proper that the Tribunal reconsider the whole issue after affording an opportunity to the appellant and respondents to adduce further evidence.

¶41

In the result the appeal is allowed. Award passed by the Tribunal in O.P.(M.V).1155/1998 is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. The Tribunal is directed to take O.P.(M.V).1155/1998 back to file and dispose the same afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to both sides to amend the pleadings and adduce evidence, if so advised. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 15.02.2008.

¶42

K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE

¶43

dvs

K.O.Sabu v. C.M.Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.O.Sabu v. C.M.Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.R.Valsan Vs Shri.a.P.M.Muhammed Haneesh & Others

K.Muthuramalingam Vs K.Balakuruppu

K.Shajith Kumar Vs P.Mohanan

M.D,Nesamony Transport Corpn Vs a.Rassalayyan

Mandothumkandy Gopalan Vs Govt. of Kerala

Vayakkara Yesoda Vs State of Kerala