High Court of Kerala set aside the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal finding it invalid due to vicarious liability against a dead driver. The matter is remitted to implead necessary state parties and allow fresh evidence.
Award set aside; matter remitted to Tribunal; permission to implead necessary parties and adduce additional evidence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932
MACA.No. 144 of 2009()
OPMV.955/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
VAZHACHAL DIVN.CHALAKUDY.
SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.P. PRAKASH.
RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:
PREMADASAN S/O.SANKARAN, THAPURAKAL HOUSE, KATHOLIPALAMBU DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. No. 144 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = == =
DATED THIS, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010.
This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, in O.P. (MV) 955 of 2004.
driven by the first respondent, met with an accident resulting in injuries to him. It is stated that the first respondent driver had rashly negotiated a curve which resulted in the jeep hitting on a bund causing the accident. The respondents in the claim petition admitted the accident; but denied the allegation of rashness and negligence. So far as the Insurance Department is concerned, it is submitted that being an 'act only policy' it will not cover
the passengers in a jeep. The Tribunal, after exhaustive consideration, awarded a sum of Rs. 57,300/- and directed Respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay the amount. I am informed that the award was passed on 19.9.2008 and that the driver of the jeep had died on 21.10.2006, which
means the finding had been entered against a dead person, which is really invalid in law and when such a finding is invalid in law, there cannot be any vicarious liability as well. So, it is necessary that the legal representatives
MACA 144/2009 :2:
of the driver are on the party array at least for the formality, though negligence cannot be attributed against them. The Tribunal did not advert to the question of negligence very seriously and simply basing on the charge sheet, found the driver negligent. On the contra, learned counsel for the Department would contend that the claimant himself had turned hostile and the criminal case has ended in acquittal. So, it is a matter where there must be proof regarding negligence. The Honourable Supreme Court as made it very clear that when a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is filed, it is incumbent upon the claimant to establish negligence. Similarly, learned counsel for the Department would contend before me that special leave was sanctioned to the injured without forfeiture of any income or other benefits available to him. If it is so, it may not be proper to compensate him for a loss which he is not likely to suffer in future as well. So it is also a mater to be considered.
MACA 144/2009 :3:
reason that the vehicle belongs ultimately to the Government. Therefore, it is also a matter that has to be taken into consideration. I am making it very clear that I am not expressing any opinion regarding the merits or demerits of the case and only directing the court below to dispose of the matter in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and impleading necessary parties.
The parties shall appear before the court below on 24.9.2010.
M.N. KRISHNAN, (JUDGE)
KNC/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal correctly attributed vicarious liability to the driver who was dead at the time of the award.
Whether the State Government and Chief Conservator of Forest are necessary parties to the proceedings for departmental vehicle claims.
Whether the award should be set aside and matter remitted for evidence and impleadment.
Divisional Forest Officer, Vazhachal Divn. Chalakudy
Premadasan S/o Sankaran
M.N. KRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
