Allowed

Indu v. Ponnappan

Kerala HC2 Feb 2016MACA/113/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged an award where the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal shifted liability from the insurer to the vehicle owner because the driver allegedly lacked a valid licence. The High Court allowed the appeal upon evidence that the driver held a valid licence, vacating the direction to recover from the owner.

What did the court decide?

The direction in the impugned award permitting the third respondent to recover compensation from the appellant is vacated. The original of the driving licence is directed to be returned to the counsel

Indu Vs Ponnappan — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/13TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

MACA.No. 113 of 2016 ()

¶6

(AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV).NO. 1061/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA DATED 27-02-2013)

¶7

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:-

¶8

INDU, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.PEETHAMBARAN, RESIDING AT NEDIYANIPUTHEN VEEDU, POLLATHAI, ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 :-

¶11

1. PONNAPPAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN,

¶12

KONNATTUCHIRAYIL, S.N.PURAM P.O.,

¶13

MARARIKULAM NORTH PANCHAYATH, WARD NO.5.,

¶14

PIN-688 523

¶15

2. SHOBI @ RAJU, S/O.VASAPPAN, VALATTUSERIL, ALUMTHURUTHIL,

¶16

THIRUVALLA. PIN-689 573

¶17

3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

¶18

HOSPITAL ROAD, BRANCH ERNAKULAM.PIN-682 011

¶19

R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,UNITED INDIA INSURANCE SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD

¶20

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

sts

¶22

M.A.C.A.NO.113/2016

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶25

ANNEX B ORIGINAL DRIVING LICENCE OF 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶31

M.A.C.A.No.113 of 2016

¶32

Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

This is an appeal filed by the owner of a vehicle involved in an accident which was the subject matter of the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, challenging the decision of the Tribunal.

¶35

The first respondent filed the claim petition alleging that he sustained injuries in an accident took place on 8.6.2007, involving the vehicle owned by the appellant and driven by the second respondent. The third respondent was the insurer of the vehicle. The appellant did not contest the application. The third respondent contested the application, contending among others, that the second respondent was

¶36

not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and as such, the third respondent is entitled to

¶37

M.A.C.A.No.113 of 2016

¶38

¶39

recover compensation, if any, payable to the claimant, from the appellant. The Tribunal accepted the case set up by the third respondent and consequently, while allowing the claim petition permitting the claimant to recover compensation from the third respondent, permitted the third respondent to recover the compensation from the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal and hence this appeal.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the third respondent.

¶41

It is seen from the award impugned in the appeal that the third respondent has been absolved from the liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the reason that the second respondent was not holding a valid licence to drive the vehicle involved in the accident. In this appeal, the appellant has produced the driving licence of the second respondent. The driving licence produced in this appeal

¶42

M.A.C.A.No.113 of 2016

¶43

¶44

indicates that the second respondent was holding a valid licence to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident. In the circumstances, the impugned award is liable to be modified.

¶45

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the direction in the impugned award permitting the third respondent to recover the compensation ordered to be paid to the claimant from the appellant is vacated. The registry is directed to return the original of the driving licence of the second respondent to the counsel for the appellant.

¶46

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶47

smm

Indu v. Ponnappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indu v. Ponnappan

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

St.Peter'S and St.Pauls'S Orthodox Syrian Church Vs Cheria @ Cherian

Panchami Vs Amminikutty John

Manuel Vivera Vs the Union of Anglo Indian Association

T.v.Hassankoya Vs M.Rajan

K.E.Abel Vs Kallaappan

Devayani Vs Lekha