Dismissed

U.v.Prakashan v. H.Abdul Salam and Others

Kerala HC5 Feb 2009MACA/1813/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed the motor accident appeal. The appellant claimed compensation after his mini lorry collided with another vehicle. The Tribunal dismissed the claim citing negligence by the appellant's driver, supported by an FIR and charge sheet. The Court found no ground to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's decision dismissing the claim for compensation.

U.v.Prakashan Vs H.Abdul Salam and Others — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

MACA.No. 1813 of 2008(B)

¶6

-------------------------------OPMV.673/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER

¶8

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

¶9

U.V. PRAKASHAN, S/O.ULAPARAMBIL VELAYUDHAN, VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, PALAYAMPARAMBU.P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶12

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

¶13

1. H. ABDUL SALAM, DARUN NABEEL, CHITTATTUMUKKU.P.O, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

2. KENNADY, S/O. ARIKUVILA RAJARATHNAM, KRISHNANKOVIL, VADASSERY GRAMAM, KANYAKUMARI JILLA, TAMIL NADU.

¶15

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., HOP JUNCTION, NAGARCOIL.

¶16

ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1813 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5^th day of February, 2009

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV)673/03. The claimant is a owner of a mini lorry bearing Reg.No.KL8/B-9046. It collided with another goods vehicle No. KL1/G-9153 driven by the 2^nd respondent. The vehicle belonging to the claimant sustained damages and he has filed an application for compensation. The Tribunal on a consideration of the materials had dismissed the case. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal.

¶21

The two documents produced by the claimant itself is against him, i.e. Ext.A1, F.I.R. and Ext.A2 charge sheet. The police after due investigation found that the driver of the claimant was negligent and therefore a charge sheet was laid against him. The claimant did not mount the box nor had tendered any evidence in support of his contention regarding the negligence of the other driver

¶22

M.A.C.A. 1813 OF 2008 -:2:-

¶23

namely 2^nd respondent. The Tribunal rightly found that from the materials produced by the claimant himself the negligence is on the part of his driver and therefore held that there cannot be a claim for damages under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. Therefore I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the Tribunal. Hence the appeal fails and it is dismissed.

¶24

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶25

ul/-

U.v.Prakashan v. H.Abdul Salam and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.v.Prakashan v. H.Abdul Salam and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.P.Sreedhari Siva Raj Vs a.P.Mydhili

Sini (Minor) Rep. by Shaji Kumar Vs R. Prabhulla Chandra Raj & Others

Elizabeth Vs Poulose.Vp & Others

Valsan Vs Krishnan

M/S. Shree Narayana Metallurgical Vs M/S.Sri Narayana Engineering Industries

T.Koya Vs P.Ahammed Koya and Others