Motor accident appeal filed against an award granting compensation. The appellant argued he sold the vehicle accused in the accident before the incident occurred. The High Court held the matter required fresh disposal.
Impugned award set aside; case remanded to MACT for retrial and fresh disposal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013/11TH POUSHA 1934
MACA.No. 989 of 2012 () ----------------------OP.(MV).1856/2004 of Principal M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT(S):
SAIFUDDIN.C.P, 37/346, SAMEERA MANZIL,' KARUVISSERY POST, KOZHIKODE 673010.
BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/2ND RESPONDENT & PETITIONER:
R1 BY ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
APPELLANT'S EXTS:
ANNEXURE-1. TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARLTICULARS DATED 10/4/2012 OF KL-11/B-6070 AND ISSUED BY THE R.T.O., KOZHIKODE.
True Copy
P.S. TO JUDGE
HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
M.A.C.A.NO.989 OF 2012
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2013
JUDGMENT
Ist respondent in O.P.(MV).No.1856/2004 on the file of
the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the award dated 01-12-2008.
petition claiming 50,000/- as compensation for the injury sustained by him in an accident occurred on 30/6/2004. The claimant was riding motorcycle No.KL-11/C-33, which was hit by another motorcycle No.KL-11/B-6070. The Tribunal passed an award allowing the claimant to realise 14,100/- with interest at 7% per annum. The Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount within thirty days of the award. It was further ordered that the Insurance Company will be entitled to recover the amount from the lst respondent after satisfying the award amount.
-2-
M.A.C.A.No.989/2012
motorcycle No.KL-11/B-6070 during the period from 5/10/2002 to 18/6/2004 and that it was sold to Nizar.T., 2/1208, Venneer Vayal House, P.O. Karaparamba, Kozhikode from 18/6/2004. It is stated that from that date the vehicle was owned by Nizar.T. Copy of the registration particulars dated 10/4/2012 of the vehicle containing these details is produced and marked as Annexure-1. It is contended that when Nizar.T. was owning and possessing the vehicle on 30/6/2004, the vehicle is alleged to have met with the accident.
-3-
M.A.C.A.No.989/2012
I have perused the written statement filed in this case. It is specifically averred in paragraph 4 that he transferred the vehicle to Nizar.T. from 18/6/2004, that the accident occurred on 30/6/2004 and that he is not liable to compensate the insurede. It is also contended that the petition is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties. The appellant produced before this Court the registration particulars of the vehicle, which would show that one Nizar T. was the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident. The grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal did not consider his contentions, but entered a finding that he was the owner of the motor cycle and held that the appellant is liable to compensate the lst respondent. Copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle No. KL-11/B6070 would show that the vehicle was transferred to Nizar.T. In the said facts and circumstances, the matter will have to be decided afresh, after issuing notice to Nizar.T.
-4-
M.A.C.A.No.989/2012
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The
impugned award is set aside. The case is remanded to the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode for retrial and fresh disposal.
HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE.
kcv.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal was liable to consider the sale of the motor vehicle before the accident.
Whether the appellant's contention that the necessary party was not impleaded was valid.
Whether the impugned award should be remanded for fresh disposal.
Saifuddin.C.P
The National Insurance Co. Ltd.
K.Mohanam
Harun-ul-Rashid
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
