Allowed

M. Dineshkumar v. Manoj Mon.E.

Kerala HC22 Jan 2013MACA/891/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's dismissal of a compensation claim, the High Court of Kerala remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Citing prima facie evidence of vehicle involvement and lack of respondent denial, the Court set aside the award and directed reconsideration of the discrepancy in vehicle numbers.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award set aside; case remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

M. Dineshkumar Vs Manoj Mon.E. — 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 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2013/2ND MAGHA 1934

¶5

MACA.No. 891 of 2012 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OPMV.944/2007 of M.A.C.T., MANJERI DATED 11-11- 2011

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

M. DINESHKUMAR S/O. M. CHOZHI,MUNDAKOTTIL HOUSE,P.O. MANCHAPPATTA ELANKUR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.KUMAR SRI.MOHAN IDICULLA ABRAHAM SRI. P.V.BALAKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

MANOJ MON.E. S/O. SUNDARAN,ERANCHIMANNA HOUSE,P.O. MANCHAPPATTA ELANKUR - 676 122.

¶12

T.RAHEEM, S/O. SHAMSUDEEN,THENGUTHODY HOUSE,MANGALASSERY P.O. KARUVAMBRAM,MANJERI - 676 123.

¶13

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE,VARIKODAN BUILDING,NILAMBUR ROAD MANJERI - 676 121. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL R3 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶16

M.A.C.A.NO.891 OF 2012

¶17

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2013

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Claimant is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the award dated 11/11/2011 in O.P.(MV).No.944/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner, though perhaps injured in a motor accident, has failed to sustain the claim for compensation against the respondents. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

¶20

The case of the claimant is that while he was walking along the Manjeri-Elankur road on 9/9/2003, the lst respondent rashly and negligently drove the motorcycle bearing Regn.No.KL-10/N-442 and hit the claimant causing serious injuries. As per Ext.A2 treatment book, the petitioner was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode with an alleged history of road accident. The claimant had sustained hemorrhagic contusion left frontal lobe and multiple fractures. The claimant was hospitalised for 12 days. The claim

¶21

-2-

¶22

MACA.No.891/2012

¶23

petition was filed claiming 2,24,000/- as compensation. Exts. A1 to A3 series and B1 to B2 were marked. The Tribunal found that the petitioner was injured in a motor accident and assessed a total compensation of 9,700/-. The Tribunal doubted the claim of the appellant, since Ext.B1 mahazar contained chasis and engine numbers of the vehicle No.KL-10/N-442 which was different from that mentioned in Ext.B2 policy. Therefore, the Tribunal found that either the vehicle involved in the accident was not the vehicle bearing No.KL-10/N-442 or the Police had committed a mistake while noting the engine and chasis numbers. On the basis of the observation the Tribunal found that the claimant is not entitled to claim compensation. The appellant contended that he being a third party, who was involved in the accident, suffered serious injuries does not have any say with any of the factors found by the Tribunal. It is submitted that there is no dispute regarding the involvement of a motorcycle bearing No.KL-10/N-442 in the accident. The Tribunal on evidence found that the claimant had

¶24

-3-

¶25

MACA.No.891/2012

¶26

sustained injuries in the motor accident involving the said vehicle

¶27

on the date mentioned in the original petition. Placing reliance on Ext.A1 F.I.R. and Ext.B1 mahazar, it is contended that the Tribunal ought to have held that the injuries noted in Ext.A2 were sustained in the motor accident, that took place on 9/9/2003, in which the motorcycle bearing No.KL-10/N-442 was involved. It is also contended that the Tribunal ought to have found that the engine/chasis number mentioned in Ext.B1 is only a mistake committed by the Police.

¶28

Ext.A1 copy of the FIR and Ext.B1 copy of mahazar

¶29

show the involvement of the motorcycle bearing Regn. No.KL10/N-442. The delay in filing the claim petition was seriously taken by the Tribunal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Apex Court has categorically held that there is no period of limitation for filing a claim petition before the Tribunal and that it is the duty of the Police Officials to intimate the Tribunal regarding the accident. Taking into account the fact

¶30

-4-

¶31

MACA.No.891/2012

¶32

that Exts.A1 and B1 documents prima facie would show the involvement of the offending vehicle and the fact that the 2^nd respondent himself has not denied the accident in the written statement, this Court is of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal.

¶33

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is set aside. The case is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶34

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.

¶35

kcv.

M. Dineshkumar v. Manoj Mon.E.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Dineshkumar v. Manoj Mon.E.

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

Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Antony Vs the Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd.

M.Gurumurthy Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

R.Haripriya Vs the Branch Manager, the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Vijayan V.G. Vs Mariya Susa

Sajimon Vs Ajith Kumar K.R