Remanded

K.v.Joseph v. Biju Mathew

Kerala HC8 Nov 2013MACA/190/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of an appeal against an award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed the appellant's claim for motorcycle damage compensation due to lack of proof of vehicle ownership. The Court remanded the petition for fresh consideration after reserving the appellant an opportunity to prove his contentions.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal award in O.P.(M.V).No.440/1996 set aside and the appeal remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

K.v.Joseph Vs Biju Mathew — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/17TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

MACA.No. 190 of 2005 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 440/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRI BUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

K.V.JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, KOOLIYADAN HOUSE, THALORE P.O.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. BIJU MATHEW, PUDUSSERYPADY HOUSE, KALLUR P.O., THRISSUR.

¶12

2. JOSHI JOHN, S/O.LONAPPAN, RESIDING AT DO. DO.

¶13

3. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, CHALAKUDY BRANCH.

¶14

R3 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶18

M.A.C.A. No.190 of 2005

¶19

Dated this, the 8^th day of November 2013

¶20

Judgment

¶21

Siri Jagan, J.

¶22

The claimant in O.P.(M.V).No.440/1996 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, is the appellant herein. He filed the OP, claiming compensation for the damages caused to a motor cycle in an accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle, owned and driven by respondents 1 and 2 and insured with the third respondent. The Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that he has not proved that he was the owner of the vehicle in question and consequently, the OP was dismissed. The appellant challenges the said award in this appeal.

¶23

After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the appellant confines the relief to another chance to prove his contentions before the Tribunal. Therefore, taking a lenient view, we set aside the award in OP(MV) No.440/96 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda and remand the O.P. to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law after

¶24

MACA No.190/05

¶25

¶26

affording an opportunity to the parties to prove their respective cases sufficiently.

¶27

The appeal is disposed of as above.

¶28

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶29

K.RAMAKRISHNAN,JUDGE

¶30

sta

¶31

MACA No.190/05 3

¶32

MACA No.190/05 4

K.v.Joseph v. Biju Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Joseph v. Biju Mathew

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

P.v.Gangadharan Vs the Special Tahsildar (L.a.)

Sudheep Vs Director General of Police

Kerala State Insurance Department Ekm Vs v.Vsavitha and Others

State of Kerala Vs C.K. Parangoden

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs P. Jayarajan and Another

V.S.Sheetal Vs Nama Ashish Premsingh