Partly allowed

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Arun

Kerala HC23 Jan 2013MACA/894/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident appeal against the OPM Court award. The appellant argued the Tribunal ignored evidence that the claimant's car driver was negligent. The court set aside the award and remanded the case for fresh consideration without revising the compensation quantum.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award is set aside and the case is remanded to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for fresh consideration.

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Arun — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2013/3RD MAGHA 1934

¶5

MACA.No. 894 of 2011 ( )

¶6

(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV.687/2005 of I ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,KOLLAM DATED 20-08-2009)

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶8

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE,M.G.ROAD,KOCHI-11.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶11

ARUN S/O.BHUVANACHANDRAN, PANAYIL VEEDU,BALAVAN NAGAR,VALLAKKADAVU P.O. MANACADU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

al.

¶14

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶15

M.A.C.A No. 894 OF 2011

¶16

Dated this the 23^rd day of January 2013

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The New India Assurance Company is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the award dated 20.8.09 in O.P.(MV) No. 687/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam.

¶19

The parties hereinafter are referred to as the petitioner and respondents as arrayed in the claim petition. The claimant was a passenger in a car. The accident took place on 17.1.2005, while he was travelling in the car. It is alleged that the 2^nd respondent was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner hit the car and thereby the claimant sustained serious injuries. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim. The claimant was allowed to recover Rs.23,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

¶20

No oral evidence was adduced in this case. Exts.A1 to A9 were marked. The respondents did not adduce any evidence. It is inter alia contended by the Insurance Company that the accident is caused not due to the negligence of the 2^nd respondent but due to the negligence of the car driver in which

¶21

M.A.C.A.No.894/2011 2

¶22

the petitioner travelled. The 2^nd respondent is the driver of the tempo van. One of the issues framed is whether the accident is occurred due to any act of the 2^nd respondent. Though such an issue was raised, it is seen that, the Tribunal answered the issue in one sentence stating that, the claimant has proved that accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2^nd respondent.

¶23

Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that in

¶24

the FI statement given by one of the passengers in the car it is specifically stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car in which the claimant travelled. Ext.A1 is the copy of the FIR which would show that the case was registered against the driver of the car. It is seen that the police also after investigation referred the case as mistake of fact as evidenced by Ext.A4 final report dated 17.1.2012. On the basis of the evidence on record as stated above, it is contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the contentions raised by the appellant that the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car in which the claimant travelled. On a reading of the award it is clear that the issue as to whether the accident was occurred due to any act of the 2^nd respondent is not being considered or evaluated. It is also seen that the contention raised by the appellant Insurance Company was not

¶25

M.A.C.A.No.894/2011 3

¶26

considered. It is also seen that the documents referred above has not been evaluated while deciding the issue. In these circumstances, the award passed by the Tribunal requires reconsideration.

¶27

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is set aside. The case is remanded to the court below for fresh consideration. It is made clear that the appellant did not raise any dispute regarding the quantum of compensation awarded.

¶28

Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE

¶29

al/-

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Arun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Arun

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

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

Vijayan V.G. Vs Mariya Susa

M. Dineshkumar Vs Manoj Mon.E.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Kunhumon

Suresh @ Surendran Vs Niyas C.K.

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Raju