Allowed

P.K.Moideenkunhi v. Abdul Rahiman

Kerala HC17 Jan 2013MACA/1213/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed an appeal against a revised Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court set aside the award directing compensation payment, finding that the Tribunal failed to serve direct notices on parties after a prior remand by the High Court, violating supreme court directions to serve notice on claimant and appellant.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award set aside. Tribunal directed to dispose of matter afresh within six months after serving proper notice on all respondents and claimant.

P.K.Moideenkunhi Vs Abdul Rahiman — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/27TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

MACA.No. 1213 of 2011 ( )

¶6

OP(MV).NO.360/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD

¶7

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

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/4TH RESPONDENTS:

¶9

P.K.MOIDEENKUNHI,S/O.MAMMU,RESIDING NEAR PERLA CHECK POST,P.O PERLA,KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT

¶11

SMT.R.LEELA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPNDENTS 1 TO 3:

¶13

1. ABDUL RAHIMAN,AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.ANDHUKA,R/IN MISIRIYA MANZIL,AMAIKALA TOPPIL,

¶14

ENMAKAJE VILLAGE,PERLA ,KASARAGOD DISTRICT ,PIN- 671 123.

¶15

2. K.MOIDU,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶16

S/O.ABBAS,KANNADIKANAN HOUSE,PERLA,

¶17

ENMAKAKJE,VILLAGE,KASARAGOD DISTRICT ,PIN- 671 123.

¶18

3. K.GANESH BHAT,S/O.SATHYA NARAYANA BHAT,

¶19

NELLIPADAVU HOUSE,MARKAJE P.O,SULLYA TALUK,

¶20

SULLYA DISTRICT,KARNATAKA- 674 327.

¶21

4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.,BRANCH OFFICE,PRABHU BUILDING, MAIN ROAD,PUTHUR,SULLYA TALUK,KARNATAKA STATE-PIN-674 327.

¶22

R1 BY ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J.

¶23

SRI.ANWAR SADATH VADAKENGARA

¶24

R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN

¶25

SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH

¶26

SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR

¶27

R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD

¶28

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts

¶29

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶30

M.A.C.A.No.1213 Of 2011

¶31

Dated this the 17^th day of January, 2013.

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The supplemental 4^th respondent in O.P.(MV).No.360/2005 on the file of the M.A.C.T., Kasaragod, is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the revised award dated 14.12.2010 in the said O.P. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition holding that the 1^st respondent and supplemental 4^th respondent are liable to compensate the claimant and directed the 4^th respondent to pay an amount of Rs.65,550/- as compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the direction to deposit the amount, the supplemental 4^th respondent has preferred the appeal.

¶34

The Tribunal by award dated 22.5.2010 disposed of the claim petition by allowing in part holding that the 1^st respondent and supplemental 4^th respondent are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.65,550/- with 7.5%. The 1^st respondent is the driver, 3^rd respondent the insurer and supplemental 4^th respondent is the appellant in this appeal, who is the subsequent purchaser of the vehicle. The 2^nd

¶35

::2::

¶36

M.A.C.A.No.1213 Of 2011

¶37

respondent in the claim petition is the original owner of the vehicle.

¶38

The insurance company challenged the award dated 22.5.2010 in M.A.C.A.No.1931/2010. This Court by judgment dated 21.10.2010 set aside the award so far it relates to the inter se liability between respondents 3 & 4 and for that purpose the parties are permitted to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. The insurance company is directed to take out notice to the claimant as well as the 4^th respondent in the claim petition for a proper disposal of the matter. The insurance company is directed to appear before the Tribunal on 22.11.2010. Subsequently, the matter was taken up, considered and the impugned award was passed.

¶39

As per the present award, the Tribunal fixed liability on the appellant and directed the appellant to deposit the award amount with interest. This Court disposed of the M.A.C.A.No.1931/2010 at the admission state. There was no occasion to issue notice to the respondents in the appeal. Therefore, this Court directed the insurance company to serve

¶40

::3::

¶41

M.A.C.A.No.1213 Of 2011

¶42

notice on the 4^th respondent and claimant. The appellant submits that no notice was served on him and therefore, he had no occasion to appear before the Tribunal. In paragraph 9 of the impugned award it is stated that after remand, notice regarding posting of the case was given to the counsel for the parties and that the 3^rd respondent alone appeared before the Tribunal. There was a specific direction issued by this Court to serve notice on the claimant and supplemental 4^th respondent. Without serving notice on the parties, notice was given to the counsel for the parties. This is a case which was disposed of by the court by award dated 14.12.2010. There was no purpose in serving notice to counsel in a disposed case. Notice should have been sent to the parties directly. Since notice has not been served on the parties, revised award passed by the Tribunal requires reconsideration.

¶43

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter afresh. The claimant, insurance company and the appellant are represented by counsel. Therefore, no separate notice need be

¶44

::4::

¶45

M.A.C.A.No.1213 Of 2011

¶46

issued to them. The 1^st respondent driver in O.P(MV). No.360/2005 alone is not represented. The Tribunal shall send notice to the said respondent. Others shall appear before the Tribunal on 12.2.2013. The Tribunal shall dispose of the case afresh within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties.

¶47

bkn/-

P.K.Moideenkunhi v. Abdul Rahiman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Moideenkunhi v. Abdul Rahiman

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 State of Kerala Vs a. Soman, S/O.Gopalan

State of Kerala Vs Panthalkaran Aboobacker Molla

T.Biji Vs a.Antony

The Joint Director, Esi Corporation, Vs M/S.Eastern Rug Mills

Nishi Moideen Vs Haridas & Ors.

K.M. Ibrahimkutty Vs Abdul Khader