Allowed

D.Joseph v. Sudeeshkumar

Kerala HC11 Jan 2013MACA/377/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's dismissal of a compensation claim. The High Court found the Tribunal denied the appellant sufficient opportunity to adduce oral evidence despite his presence and medical complaints. The appeal was allowed, the award set aside, and the case remanded for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed. The impugned award is set aside. The case is remanded to the MACT for fresh disposal with sufficient opportunity for the claimant to adduce evidence.

D.Joseph Vs Sudeeshkumar — 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

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/21ST POUSHA 1934

¶5

MACA.No. 377 of 2012 ()

¶6

OP(MV) NO.651/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA.

¶7

APPELLANT/APPLICANT:

¶8

D. JOSEPH, S/O. DEVADAS, AYANIMOODU VILAKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, NEAR MAVUVILA, THOONGAMPARA, PARACHAL WARD, KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.NIKHIL.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. SUDEESHKUMAR, S/O. KUTTAN NADAR, DEEPTHI BHAVAN, KOLIYOOR, MUTTACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 523.

¶12

2. JOHN, S/O. APPU NADAR, ANOORKUZHI, PRASAD BHAVAN, VENGANNOOR VILLAGE, PERINGAMMALA-695 563.

¶13

3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., HOSPITAL JUNCTION, NEYYATTINKARA-695 121.

¶14

4. MANOHARAN, S/O. APPU NADAR, PRASAD BHAVAN, ANOORKUZHI, VENGANNOOR, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 121.

¶15

R3 BY ADV. SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR), SC. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD.

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶19

M.A.C.A.NO.377 OF 2012

¶20

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Claimant is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the award dated 30/6/2011 in O.P.(MV).651/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition finding that the claimant failed to prove the accident as alleged. According to the claimant, he met with the accident on 28/8/2004, while he was walking along the side of the road, a granite stone had fallen on his left leg and foot from the lorry bearing Regn.No.KL 07-H-6654 which came driven along the road in a rash and negligent manner. It is alleged that on account of the accident, the claimant sustained fracture to the left fibula and the 4^th metacarpal left, contusions and abrasions over his left hip, right femur etc. The Tribunal dismissed the application relying on the final report submitted by the Police that no accident as alleged occurred and therefore held that the applicant is not entitled to compensation. The claimant submits that

¶23

-2-

¶24

M.A.C.A.No.377/2012

¶25

on 25/4/2011 he was present before the Tribunal to tender evidence and filed proof affidavit. It is said that the Tribunal did not permit appellant to adduce oral evidence. The Tribunal marked the documents produced and the award was passed on 30/6/2011. Copy of the order sheet in this case was produced as directed by this Court. The endorsement dated 25/4/2011 is as follows:

¶26

“ Documents filed. Applicant is present in person. He complaints of pain at fracture site. He is seen to limp slightly and complaints of difficulty to walk fast or to do any hard labour. Exts.A1 to A7 marked.”

¶27

On 25/4/2011 the Tribunal issued summons in I.A. filed

¶28

by the 2^nd respondent. The endorsement recorded on 15/6/2001 is as follows:

¶29

“CD produced is marked Ext.D1. Heard. For orders to 28/6/2011.”

¶30

On 28/6/2011 the case was adjourned to 30/6/2011 for

¶31

judgment. From the proceedings noticed above, it is seen that the appellant was not given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his case. The appellant wanted to examine himself as

¶32

-3-

¶33

M.A.C.A.No.377/2012

¶34

witness in support of his claim. Considering the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that an opportunity shall be given to the claimant to substantiate his case.

¶35

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The case is remanded to the MACT, Neyyattinkara for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The claimant shall be given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence to substantiate his case. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 04/02/2013. Counsel shall inform the parties. The Tribunal shall dispose of the claim petition within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties.

¶36

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.

¶37

kcv.

D.Joseph v. Sudeeshkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Joseph v. Sudeeshkumar

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

Lakshmanan Vs Jomina

Prasad Vs Sudheesh and Another

Noby Rozario Vs Heldin Hentry M.H

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Velu

E.S.I.Corporation Vs Mr.Shaju K.S.

Regional Director,Esi Corporation Vs v.C.Prema