Dismissed

Mohanan v. Asha Vigh

Kerala HC14 Oct 2016MACA/1056/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The KeralaHC dismissed an appeal by a motor accident claimant who could not substantiate his version of the accident, noting discrepancies between his claim, the FIR, and criminal charge. The court held the claim dismissed by the tribunal was unsustainable and directed the appellant to file a fresh petition with correct facts.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the appellant is directed to approach the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal again with a proper petition explaining the factual circumstances correctly.

Mohanan Vs Asha Vigh — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/22ND ASWINA, 1938

¶5

MACA.No. 1056 of 2014 ()

¶6

------------------------OP(MV).NO. 102/2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL

¶7

APPELLANT/APPLICANTS:

¶8

MOHANAN, S/O PEETHAMBARAN, PRASANTH BHAVAN, ALAPURAM, NETTARACHIRA, NEDUMANGADU P.O.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR SMT.R.N.SAJITHA

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

*1. ASHA VIGH,

¶12

D-23, 1ST FLOOR, SECTOR -38, NOIDA, COCHIN, PIN - 682 037. (CORRECTED)

¶13

2. SUNIL LAL T.S., S/O THANKAPPAN NAIR, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, ALUMKUZHY ELAVATTOM P.O.,

¶14

PIN - 695 562.

¶15

3. THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD., RAMAKRISHNA BUILDINGS,

¶16

ARISTO JUNCTION, THAMPANOOR, PIN - 695 036.

¶17

*ADDRESS OF RESPONDENT NO.1 IS CORRECTED AS

¶18

ASHA VIGH, D-23, 1ST FLOOR, SECTOR-38, NOIDA, NEW DELHI, PIN-201 301.

¶19

AS PER ORDER DATED 17/9/2015 IN IA.NO.3185/2015 IN MACA.1056/2014.

¶20

R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMARAJ R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.J.ANTONY JOSEPH MARIADAS BY SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN

¶21

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

sts

¶23

P.V.ASHA, J.

¶24

M.A.C.A.No.1056 of 2014-D

¶25

Dated this the 14^th day of October, 2016

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The appellant is the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Attingal in O.P(MV).No.102/2006, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.1 lakh.

¶28

The claim petition was filed claiming that a motor vehicle accident occurred on 16.10.2005 while the claimant was standing on the foot path adjoining Nedumangadu-Aryanadu public road at Nettarachira junction when a Maruti car driven by the second respondent knocked him down and that he sustained bodily injuries. It is stated that the appellant sustained abrasion of knee and abrasion of right heel and fracture of nasal bone.

¶29

The tribunal found that from the F.I.R Ext.A1, the charge sheet Ext.A4 and the scene mahazar Ext.A2, the accident was seen to have occurred on account of a collision between the Maruti car and a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KL-01/N-

¶30

M.A.C.A.No.1056 of 2014-D 2

¶31

5649 and the claimant was a pillion rider on it. Even though it was found that the driver of the Maruti car - the 2^nd respondent, was in an inebriated condition at the time of the accident and he alone was implicated as the accused, the tribunal found that the case projected by the claimant was entirely different from what was revealed from the documents produced on behalf of the appellant himself.

¶32

It is seen that the motor cycle also was insured by the very same insurance company as in the case of the Maruti car.

¶33

On the basis of the false story projected by the appellant, the tribunal found that the accident cannot prima facie be found to have occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the second respondent. The tribunal, on analysis of the medical evidence available on record, found that the appellant sustained bodily injuries in a road traffic accident. However, since the nature of accident picturised by him in the claim petition was not acceptable, the tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

¶34

In the appeal filed before this court also, the appellant submits that the accident occurred while he was standing on the

¶35

M.A.C.A.No.1056 of 2014-D 3

¶36

foot path at 8.45 p.m on account of the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent, as stated by him in the claim petition itself.

¶37

I heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company.

¶38

On going through the records, Exts.A1 and A4 it can be seen that the accident occurred on account of the collision between the two vehicles. Nowhere it is seen that the appellant was a pedestrian. However, in the final charge submitted before the criminal court the second respondent is implicated as the accused. Therefore, it cannot be seen that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent. Rider of the motor vehicle is not seen implicated as accused. It is not understood why the appellant came out with a different version for claiming compensation, even after sustaining injuries and the motorcycle was having insurance coverage.

¶39

In these circumstances, I dismiss this appeal making it clear that the appellant will be free to approach the Motor

¶40

M.A.C.A.No.1056 of 2014-D 4

¶41

Accidents Claims Tribunal again with a proper petition explaining the factual circumstances correctly.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

¶44

rtr/

¶45

/true copy/

¶46

P.S to Judge

Mohanan v. Asha Vigh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanan v. Asha Vigh

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

Padmini Bhai Vs Dr. K.v.Krishnadas

Nishad Vs v.Padmanabhan and Oriental Insurance

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Maheswary and Another

P. Neelakanta Pillai Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Subhadra Vs Government of Kerala

N.Pushparajan and Others Vs the District Collector, Civil Station