Allowed

V.R.Ananthan v. Sunil Kumar N.B.

Kerala HC15 Jan 2013MACA/730/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor accident claims appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's award. The Court held the Tribunal ignored negligence issues and wrongly denied compensation based only on the claimant's lack of a licence, without examining the other driver's fault.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award of the Tribunal is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to consider the matter afresh and dispose of it in accordance with law.

V.R.Ananthan Vs Sunil Kumar N.B. — 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

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/25TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

MACA.No. 730 of 2012 (E)

¶6

[AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P(M.V).NO.797/2011 DATED 10-01-2012 OF THE PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE]

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE O.P.(M.V):

¶8

V.R.ANANTHAN, S/O.RAMAN NAIR,AGED 66 YEARS,ANANTHA BHAVAN, KOKKILITHAZHATH,PUTHOOR,ERANHIKKAL P.O, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P.(M.V):

¶11

1. SUNIL KUMAR N.B, S/O.BALAN N.N.,AGED 48 YEARS,NELLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAKKAD P.O., PUTHIYANGADI,KOZHIKODE-673 005.

¶12

2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 2ND FLOOR,NOOR COMPLEX,MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR, R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE.

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Prv.

¶16

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶17

M.A.C.A.NO. 730 OF 2012

¶18

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Claimant is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the award dated 10/1/2012 in O.P.(MV).No.797/2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. '

¶21

Claimant sustained injuries due to a motor vehicle

¶22

accident took place on 11/4/2011 while he was riding on a motor cycle, the offending vehicle namely, car driven by the lst respondent hit his motor cycle. As a result of the accident the claimant sustained injuries. He was taken to the General Hospital, Kozhikode and after his discharge, he was again admitted in the MIMS Hospital on 12/4/2011 , Kozhikode and discharged on 23/4/2011, after surgery on 14/4/2011. Claimant produced Ext.A1 copy of the FIR, Ext.A2 copy of the wound certificate, Ext.A3 copy of the final report and Ext.A4 copy of the discharge summary.

¶23

The Tribunal did not place reliance on any of the

¶24

-2-

¶25

M.A.C.A.No.730/2012

¶26

documents produced by the claimant. The Tribunal accepted the contentions of the 2nd respondent-National Insurance Company Ltd. that the claimant had ridden the motor cycle without licence, met with the accident and therefore he is not entitled to get any compensation as claimed. The 2^nd respondent produced Ext.B1 which is a copy of the receipt issued by the Magistrate's Court. Going by Ext.B1 receipt the Tribunal held that the claimant was convicted and sentenced by the court for having ridden the motor cycle without any licence at the time of accident. Therefore the Tribunal concluded that such a person is not entitled to get any compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶27

The claimant had produced Exts.A1 and A3 which

¶28

show that the charge was levelled against the lst respondent. Exts.A2 and A4 were produced to prove that he has sustained severe injuries and was hospitalised for a good number of days. The question as to whether the negligent driving of the lst respondent had caused the accident was not examined by the Tribunal. What was examined is the allegation against the

¶29

-3-

¶30

M.A.C.A.No.730/2012

¶31

claimant that he was driving the vehicle without any valid licence. This Court in many cases repeatedly held that the charge is conclusive proof to settle the negligence against the rider of the vehicle. It is submitted that the Police, after investigation, charge sheeted the lst respondent for rash and negligent driving.

¶32

From the facts and circumstances noticed above, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal shall enquire into the matter and pass appropriate orders as to whether the lst respondent was negligent in driving the offending vehicle and as to whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation. Since the Tribunal did not go into the issues involved in the case, the matter will have to be decided afresh.

¶33

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is set aside. There will be a direction to the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence if so advised.

¶34

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.

¶35

kcv.

V.R.Ananthan v. Sunil Kumar N.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.R.Ananthan v. Sunil Kumar N.B.

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

Kamalamma Vs Krishnankutty

S.Rajendran Vs Managing Director, Jayalalitha Transport

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Velu

State of Kerala Vs Kochukutty

Executive Engineer, Tc Division Vs N. Venugopalan

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs E.B.Robin