Dismissed

Kannankutty v. M.C.Moideen and Others

Kerala HC9 Jun 2011MACA/2313/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 20,000 under Section 140 after finding the claimant failed to prove negligence by the opposite driver. The Court upheld this finding and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal's award of Rs. 20,000 under Section 140 was upheld.

Kannankutty Vs M.C.Moideen and Others — Medical Negligence | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

MACA.No. 2313 of 2008() ----------------------OPMV.3318/2001 of PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

¶6

APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER:

¶7

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

¶8

KANNANKUTTY, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.KEERAN, CHALIKKARA HOUSE, CHEKKODE P.O., VIA CHERUVAYOOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SMT.PRAISHEEL PRAKASAM, SMT.BEATRICE FERIA.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

1. M.C.MOIDEEN, AGE NOT KNOWN, MOOLAYIL HOUSE, ANANTHAYOOR, P.O, VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM.

¶13

2. MOHAMMED RIYAS, S/O.BEERAN, AGED 30 YEARS, MAZHUVANCHERY, P.O.FEROKE,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶14

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., JASEELA COMPLEX, P.B.NO.3,MANJERI.

¶15

R3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.

¶19

M.A.C.A. No. 2313 of 2008

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Dated this the 9^th day of June

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Barkath Ali, J.

¶25

Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.3318 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. In this appeal he challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated January 8, 2008 dismissing his claim for compensation for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, but awarding a compensation of ` 20,000/- under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶26

The accident happened on August 12, 2001 at about 7 p.m. at Ottupara (Ananthyoor). A motor cycle bearing registration No.KL 10/E 4726 on which the claimant was pillion riding collided head on with a jeep bearing registration No.KL-10/G 9596, driven by the second respondent. The claimant was thrown on the road and he sustained fracture of both bones of right leg. Alleging negligence against the second respondent, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under section 166 of the

¶27

¶28

MACA 2313/2008

¶29

Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of ` 2,00,000/-

¶30

Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the offending jeep, remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending vehicle, filed a written statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep. Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence was adduced on the side of the contesting third respondent. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the claimant has failed to prove that the accident occurred due to negligence of the second respondent, the driver of the offending jeep but awarded a compensation of ` 20,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, which the third respondent has to be adjusted towards the compensation under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimant has come up in appeal challenging the said award of the Tribunal.

¶31

Heard the counsel for the claimant and the counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶32

¶33

MACA 2313/2008

¶34

The following points arise for consideration in this

¶35

appeal:-

¶36

1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the claimant has failed to prove negligence on the part of the second respondent, the driver of the offending jeep, can be sustained?

¶37

1. Whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation?

¶38

Point No.1:Only copy of the wound certificate

¶39

and medical bills have been produced by the claimant before the Tribunal. He has also not chosen to come forward and swear regarding the alleged negligence of jeep driver. Therefore, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the claimant has failed to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending jeep. The finding of the Tribunal on this point is confirmed.

¶40

Point No.2:Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal awarded ` 20,000/-, which the third respondent was directed to adjust the award under section 140 of the Motor

¶41

MACA 2313/2008

¶42

¶43

Vehicles Act. As no document is produced by the claimant regarding his treatment, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

¶44

In the circumstances, we feel that there is no merit

¶45

in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶46

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶47

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE.

¶48

P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE.

¶49

Kannankutty v. M.C.Moideen and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kannankutty v. M.C.Moideen 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

Biju Vs C.G.Sudhakaran

C.Muhammed Asharaf Vs H.Moorthy

H,Iysha Beevi Vs S.Anil Kumar

K.Narayani Vs T.Oommen Panicker

P.Ayyappan Vs T.Oommen Panicker

P.G.Mohanan Vs T.P.Vinod