Allowed

Lakshmanan v. Jomina

Kerala HC10 Jan 2013MACA/988/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor accident claims appeal, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's direction to recover compensation from the appellant. The Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the matter after the Regional Transport Officer confirmed the appellant held a valid driving licence on the accident date.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award set aside to the extent of recovery direction; matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration.

Lakshmanan Vs Jomina — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/20TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

MACA.No. 988 of 2012 (E)

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DTD. 10.1.2012 IN OPMV.9/2009 OF M.A.C.T, OTTAPALAM.

¶7

APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶8

LAKSHMANAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, ERAVATHODI THERUVU, P.O. KANIYARCODE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

(DRIVER-CUM-OWNER OF KED-5040 JEEP)

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2, 3 & 4:

¶12

JOMINA, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.EBENEZAR NOBLE DAVID, PALATHARA HOUSE, THIRUVILWAMALA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., OTTAPALAM BRANCH, P.O. OTTAPALAM - 690001, PALAKKAD DISTRICT (INSURER OF KED-5040 JEEP) POLICY NO.101203/31/07/02/0004031 POLICY VALID FROM 22.8.2007 TO 21.8.2008.

¶14

SHAMEEJA, AGE NOT KNOWN, D/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, VADAKKEKALAM HOUSE, P.O. THIRUVILWAMALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 678 351 (OWNER OF KL-8-V-9011 AUTORICKSHAW)

¶15

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., OTTAPALAM BRANCH, P.O.OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 693001. (INSURER OF KL-8-V-9011 AUTORICKSHAW) (AMENDED AS PER THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.731/09 DTD.4.4.09)

¶16

R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN R3 BY ADV. SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA R3 BY ADV. SMT.RASHMI RAVINDRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD R4 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

MACA.No. 988 of 2012 (E)

¶19

ORDER ON I.A.NOS.1271/12, 2484/12 & 2542/2012

¶20

DISMISSED.

¶21

10.1.2012 SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

ANNEXURE -A: RELEVANT PAGES OF TRANSFERRED DRIVING LICENCE OF THE APPELLANT.

¶25

ANNEXURE-B: AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY AS WELL AS THE SUMMONS RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE MACT, OTTAPALAM.

¶26

ANNEXURES SUBMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER:

¶27

ANNEXURE - I: LICENCE PARTICULARS.

¶28

ANNEXURE - II: LETTER NO.G5/9453/TC/2008 DTD. 6.2.2009.

¶29

// TRUE COPY //

¶30

P.A TO JUDGE.

¶31

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶32

M.A.C.A.No.988 Of 2012

¶33

Dated this the 10^th day of January, 2013.

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The 1^st respondent in the original petition is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the award dated 10.1.2012 in O.P (MV).No.9/2009 on the file of the M.A.C.T., Ottappalam. The 1^st respondent herein is the claimant.

¶36

The appellant is the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle namely, jeep bearing registration No.KED 5040 which has

¶37

caused the accident. The claimant while travelling in an autorickshaw when reached the accident spot, the offending jeep driven by the appellant had hit against the autorickshaw causing injuries to the claimant. The 2^nd respondent in the claim petition is the insurer of the offending vehicle. It is not disputed that the vehicle was validly insured with the 2^nd respondent company at the time of the accident. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant, who is the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. The 2^nd respondent insurance company contended that there was no driving licence

¶38

::2::

¶39

M.A.C.A.No.988 Of 2012

¶40

with badge for the 1^st respondent at the time of accident. The company filed I.A.No.291/2011 for a direction to the appellant to produce the driving licence and badge. The originals of driving licence and badge were not produced though such a direction was issued by the court below in I.A.No.291/2011. Instead, the appellant produced copy of the driving licence and filed an affidavit stating that he is unable to produce the original for comparison with the photocopy of the driving licence. The Tribunal, due to non-production of driving licence with badge of the appellant and fitness certificate of the jeep, drawn adverse inference. The Tribunal held that Ext.B3 copy of the driving licence cannot be relied on. In the said circumstance the Tribunal directed the 2^nd respondent insurance company to pay the compensation award and realise the same from the appellant. Aggrieved by that part of the decree which direct recovery of the amount from the appellant, the appeal has been preferred.

¶41

The appellant filed I.A.No.2542/2012 praying for a direction to the Regional Transport Officer, Wadakkancherry, to produce the licence issued by the office of the District Transport

¶42

::3::

¶43

M.A.C.A.No.988 Of 2012

¶44

Officer, Imphal - West District, Government of Manipur, bearing No.168679 which was produced by the appellant before the RTO, Wadakkanchery pursuant to which licence No.48/2920/2010 dated 20.8.2010 was issued to the appellant by the RTO.

¶45

Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the I.A, the RTO, Wadakkanchery filed an affidavit on 5.12.12. He has also produced copies of the driving licence particulars of the appellant as Annexure I and a communication from the Transport Commissioner and a circular dated 6.2.2009 as Annexure II. This Court, by order dated 11.10.2012, in I.A.No.2542/2012, issued summons to the Regional Transport Officer, Wadakkanchery, to produce the original of driving licence bearing No.168679 issued to the applicant on 19.3.2004 by the District Transport Officer, Imphal West District, which according to the applicant was surrendered by him before the RTO, Wadakkanchery, for the purpose of issuing driving licence No.48/2920/2010 dated 20.8.2010. On receipt of the summons, the RTO, Wadakkanchery has filed a detailed affidavit. Paragraph 3 of the affidavit reads as follows:

¶46

::4::

¶47

M.A.C.A.No.988 Of 2012

¶48

“3. Upon receipt of the intimation regarding the direction by this Honourable Court, I have perused the files relating to the issue of driving licence to Sri.Lakshmanan Raman the appellant in the above MACA. On enquiry this respondent found that the licence bearing No.48/2920/2010 has been issued to the applicant - Lakshmanan Raman on 20.8.2010 renewing his old licence which was a Non-Transport Vehicle licence valid during the period from 19.3.2004 to 18.3.2009. A true copy of the licence particulars of the applicant Lakshmanan Raman is produced herewith and marked as Annexure - I. It is clear from Annexure - I that the applicant, Lakshmanan Raman was having a valid driving licence on 20.7.2008, the date of the accident.”

¶49

On the basis of the licence particulars of th appellant produced as Annexure I, the RTO, Wadakkanchery submitted that the appellant was holding a valid driving licence on 20.7.2008 i.e., on the date of the accident. In the above said facts and circumstances the direction issued by the Tribunal to recover the award amount from the appellant requires re-consideration. The matter will have to be decided afresh in the light of the subsequent developments.

¶50

::5::

¶51

M.A.C.A.No.988 Of 2012

¶52

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is set aside to the extent it direct the appellant to reimburse the compensation amount paid by the insurance company. The Tribunal shall consider and dispose of the matter afresh in the light of the observations made above. The appellant is free to adduce evidence in support of his contentions. The Registry shall forward the affidavit and annexures filed by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Wadakkanchery, along with memorandum of appeal and records.

¶53

bkn/-

Lakshmanan v. Jomina

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmanan v. Jomina

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

Shihab Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Pacha Yesoda

O.T.Chackochan Vs Sri.K.G.Mohan Lal

Prasad Vs Sudheesh and Another

Noby Rozario Vs Heldin Hentry M.H

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Fasaludheen