Partly allowed

Anandan v. Joju

Kerala HC2 Jun 2014MACA/416/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident appeal, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's finding of 50% contributory negligence against the appellant despite his lack of a valid license, as the license deficiency did not cause the accident. The Court held the insurer liable for the full assessed compensation of `48,530/- without interfering with the quantum.

What did the court decide?

The finding of contributory negligence was set aside. The insurer was ordered to pay the full compensation of `48,530/- with interest within two months.

Anandan Vs Joju — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2014/12TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

MACA.No. 416 of 2013 ()

¶6

OPMV 1377/2007 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

ANANDAN,

¶9

S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, CHERAT HOUSE, THUMBOOR DESOM AND P.O. KOTTANELLOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

JOJU, S/O.CHANDRAN, ALUKKATHARA HOUSE, PONJANAM.P.O-680 702.

¶13

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. IRINJALAKUDA.P.O.-680 121.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH R1 BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.K.PREETHA R2 BY SRI.M.A.GEORGE

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.KEMAL PASHA J.

¶17

¶18

M.A.C.A. No.416 of 2013

¶19

¶20

Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2014

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V) No.1377 of 2007 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda has come up in appeal by challenging the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal as

¶23

well as the finding of contributory negligence entered by the Tribunal.

¶24

The appellant, while riding on his motor bike through Vazhikkalachira - Thumboor convent road from west to east, was knocked down by another motor cycle that was being ridden by the first respondent from the opposite direction on account of the rashness and negligence of the first respondent in riding the said motor bike. The offending motor cycle was covered by a valid Insurance Policy issued with the second respondent/Insurance

¶25

M.A.C.A. No.416 of 2013

¶26

¶27

company. The learned Tribunal has taken a view that as the

¶28

appellant was not having a valid driving license for enabling him to ride the motor bike, he had also contributed to the accident, thereby the liability of the offending motor bike was fixed at 50%. It seems that the learned Tribunal has arrived at a total amount of compensation at 48,530/- to which the appellant is normally entitled. By entering a finding of 50% of contribution from the part of the appellant, the learned Tribunal has ordered the payment of an amount of 24,265/- with interest only, to the appellant as compensation by the second respondent herein.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the second respondent. The finding of the contributory negligence entered by the learned Tribunal seems to be erroneous. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the width of the tarred portion of the road at the site of the accident is 4.30 mtrs. Admittedly, the appellant was riding on his motor bike from west

¶30

M.A.C.A. No.416 of 2013

¶31

¶32

to east. The incident had occurred at the spot which is 1.70 mtrs. away towards south from the northern tar end. Matters being so, it is evident that the appellant was keeping his correct side; whereas, the first respondent herein had entered the wrong side of the road and knocked down the appellant. There is no reason to find any contribution from the part of the appellant herein in the accident. It may be true that he was not holding any valid driving license. At the same time, that deficiency had not contributed in the accident. Matters being so, the entire liability to pay the compensation to the appellant is on the second respondent herein, who is the insurer of the offending motor bike. The finding of the contributory negligence entered by the Tribunal is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.

¶33

Even though the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the amount arrived at as compensation by the learned Tribunal is too low, the learned counsel for the second respondent

¶34

M.A.C.A. No.416 of 2013

¶35

¶36

has pointed out that the total amount claimed by the appellant before the Tribunal was only 50,000/-. It seems that the Tribunal has arrived at an amount of 48,530/- as compensation on account of the injuries sustained to the appellant. Matters being so, this Court is of the view that the quantum fixed by the learned Tribunal does not invite any interference at all.

¶37

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and the finding of the contributory negligence entered by the learned Tribunal is set aside. It is found that the appellant is entitled to get an amount of `48,530/- as compensation, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident and the second respondent herein has to pay the entire amount with interest as ordered, within two months. There

¶38

is no order as to costs.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

B.KEMAL PASHA , JUDGE

¶41

¶42

// TRUE COPY //

Anandan v. Joju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anandan v. Joju

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

Sadasivan Vs Viswambharan

The Manager, Pressure Dies Casting Unit Vs the Regional Director

Sudheesh Kumar Vs T.S.Jayakumar

The Deputy Director,Esi Corporation Vs M/S.Hi-Build Coatings Pvt.Ltd.

Vaisakh (Minor) Vs Abdurahiman.K.P.

Jadheer Vs Firoz Kunnathoor