Disposed

Gopinadhan N.V. v. Sarvamadanan

Kerala HC24 Jul 2012OP (MAC)/2055/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposing a writ petition, the Court directed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to expeditiously hear pending petitions from the respondents to set aside an ex parte award and finally determine liability for insurance recovery from the vehicle owner.

What did the court decide?

Directed MACT to take up IA Nos. 3262/2011 and 3263/2011 expeditiously and pass final orders within six weeks.

Gopinadhan N.V. Vs Sarvamadanan — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2012/2ND SRAVANA 1934 OP (MACT).No. 2055 of 2012 (O) -----------------------------OPMV.1226/2006 of MACT MUVATTUPUZHA

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

GOPINADHAN N.V., AGED 50 YEARS GOPINATHAN N.V S/O.VELAYUDHAN AGED 50 YEARS NITHIN NIVAS ARTHUNGAL (PO) CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA DISTRIC

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR

¶8

SRI.DARSAN SOMANATH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

SARVAMADANAN S/O.SIVADASAN MALAYIL (KALATHARA) HOUSE UDAYANAPURAM (PO) VADAKKEMURIKKARA VAIKOM TALUK PIN 686143

¶11

BIJUMON O.M S/O.OUSAPE MALAYATTOOR HOUSE UDAYANAPURAM (PO) VADAKKEMURIKKARA VAIKOM TALUK PIN 686143

¶12

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD KOTTAYAM BRANCH REP BY ITS MANAGER KOTTAYAM PIN 686001

¶13

BY ADV. SMT.E.R.MANJU LAHITHAN BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE BY ADV SRI.M.A.GEORGE

¶14

THIS OP (MACT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶17

EXT.P1 THE TRUE COPY OF AWARD IN OP(MV) 1226/2006 DATED 13/10/2010 EXT.P2 THE TRUE COPY OF DRIVING LICENCE OF 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO 3262/2011 IN OPMV NO.1226/2006 DATED 17/12/2011 EXT.P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO 3263/2011 IN OP(MV) NO 1226/2006 DATED 17/12/2011 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT. EXT.P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 7224/2012 DATED 26/3/2012

¶18

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL

¶19

JJ /TRUE COPY/

¶20

P.S.TO JUDGE

¶21

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶22

O.P(MAC) NO: 2055 OF 2012

¶23

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 24^th July, 2012.

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner is the owner of a vehicle bearing registration No: KL-4T 6282 which was involved in an accident on 1-10-2006 causing injuries to the first respondent who was a passenger therein. The first respondent filed OP(MV) 1226/2006 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The vehicle was covered by a valid policy of insurance issued by the third respondent insurance company. As per Ext.P1 award an amount of `29,500/- (Rupees twenty nine thousand five hundred only) has been granted as compensation to the first respondent with 8% interest. However, on the basis of a finding that the driver of the motor vehicle did not have a valid driving licence the Tribunal has ordered that the third respondent insurance company would be at liberty to recover the compensation amount from the petitioner.

¶26

The petitioner as well as the driver of the vehicle were ex parte before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. Therefore, according to them Ext.P1 is an ex parte award. The first

¶27

OP(MAC) 2055/2012

¶28

¶29

respondent has filed Exts.P3 and P4 petitions for setting aside the ex parte decree and for condonation of the delay in filing them. The said petitions are pending consideration of the MACT.

¶30

In the meantime, according to the petitioner, the insurance company has paid the award amount to the first respondent. Thereafter, the insurance company has initiated Revenue Recovery proceedings for recovery of the amounts paid by them. The petitioner therefore seeks the issue of appropriate directions to the Tribunal to finally dispose of Exts.P3 and P4 petitions expeditiously. According to the petitioner, the petitions now stand posted to 30-9-2012.

¶31

I have heard the counsel for the insurance company as well as the counsel for the first respondent.

¶32

In view of the fact that the compensation amount payable to the first respondent has already been received by him, what remains at present is only a determination of the question as to whether the insurance company is entitled to recover the amount paid, from the petitioner. It is only appropriate that the said question is decided by the MACT, expeditiously.

¶33

This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattpuzha to take up

¶34

OP(MAC) 2055/2012

¶35

¶36

I.A.3262/2011 and 3263/2011 in OP(MV) 1226/2006 expeditiously, to consider the same on the merits and to pass final orders on the said petitions, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶38

jj /True Copy/

¶39

P.S.to Judge

¶40

OP(MAC) 2055/2012 4

Gopinadhan N.V. v. Sarvamadanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopinadhan N.V. v. Sarvamadanan

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

The Managing Director Vs C.S.Surendran

The Managing Director Vs Kripalini

The Special Sale Officer/Inspector Vs v.Binu

M.Manappully Vs T.K.Manoj Kumar, IAS

N.P.Sukumaran Vs the Joint Registrar

O.Suresh Vs Kerala State Electricity Board