Partly allowed

Anilkumar v. Beena

Kerala HC4 Feb 2016MACA/1328/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This tribunal allowed the appeal filed by a vehicle owner challenging an award where he was impleaded without proper notice. Finding that the appellant sold the vehicle prior to the accident and lacked effective notice, the court set aside the ex parte order and the award, directing a fresh hearing and refund of appeal deposits.

What did the court decide?

Ex parte order and award set aside; Tribunal directed to consider claim petition afresh; appeal deposit refunded.

Anilkumar Vs Beena — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/15TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

MACA.No. 1328 of 2015 ()

¶6

------------------------OPMV.633/2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA.

¶7

APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶8

M/S. ARAVIND MARKETING, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM, PRESENT ADDRESS ANIL KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN, PANOOR, PADINJETTATHIL HOUSE, PANMANAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPILLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), SRI.N.L.BITTO.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER 2, 3 RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. BEENA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. SURENDRANATH, THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLORE TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.

¶12

2. ASHRAF,

¶13

S/O. KUNJUMUHAMMED, ALANKARATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOMBANATTUKADAVU DESOM, PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.

¶14

3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, PARAMESWARAM PILLAI BHAVAN, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOLLAM, PIN-676 001.

¶15

R3 BY ADVS. SMT.DEEPA GEORGE, SRI.M.A.GEORGE.

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs.

¶17

MACA.No. 1328 of 2015

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶20

ANNEXURE 1	COPY OF THE RC PARTICULARS OF VEHICLE NO.KL-2J-1683
	ISSUED DATED 16/01/2015 FROM THE RTO, KOLLAM.
ANNEXURE 2	COPY OF THE EXECUTING PETITION EP/127/2011 IN OP(MV) NO.633/2006 FILED BEFORE THE MACT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 24/11/2011.

¶21

ANNEXURE 3 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF VEHICLE NO.KL-02-J-1683 FROM THE RTO MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 05/06/2015.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶27

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶28

M.A.C.A.No.1328 of 2015.

¶29

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶30

Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2016.

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The first respondent in a proceedings for

¶33

compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has

¶34

come up in this appeal challenging the award in the proceedings.

¶35

The claim petition was filed alleging that the claimant sustained injuries in an accident took place on 13.10.2004, involving a vehicle owned by the appellant and driven by the second respondent. The appellant did not contest the claim petition. The third respondent was the insurer of the vehicle. The third respondent contested the claim petition contending that the second respondent was not holding a driving licence at the time of accident and therefore they are not liable to indemnify the appellant. The Tribunal accepted the case of the third respondent and passed an award directing the appellant and the driver of the vehicle to pay compensation to the claimant. The appellant is aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal

¶36

MACA.No.1328/2015.

¶37

¶38

and hence this appeal.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as

¶40

also the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer.

¶41

The learned counsel for the appellant contended

¶42

that there was no proper service of notice of the proceedings on him and consequently, he was not aware of the proceedings. According to the appellant, it is on account of the said reason, he could not appear before the Tribunal. He also contended that the vehicle involved in the accident was sold by him long prior to the accident, on 3.8.2004, and as such, he was an unnecessary party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. In support of the said contention, he has produced the registration particulars of the vehicle involved in the accident as an additional document in this appeal.

¶43

The address of the first respondent was shown in the cause title of the claim petition as Anilkumar, M/s.Aravind Marketing, Kavanad P.O., Kollam. According to the appellant, though M/s.Aravind Marketing was an establishment owned by him, the same was closed down long back. The records of the

¶44

MACA.No.1328/2015.

¶45

¶46

case would indicate that since notice of the proceedings could not be served on the appellant in the said address, notice was served on the appellant by publication in a newspaper. The registration particulars of the vehicle produced by the appellant indicates that the appellant has sold the vehicle in question to one Afsal A.A., S/o.Alikunju, Aryankalayil House, Mudavoor P.O., Muvattupuzha on 2.8.2004 and the registration of the vehicle was changed to his name on 3.8.2004. It is thus prima facie evident that the claim petition was filed without arraying the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident as a party in the proceedings. It is also evident that there was no occasion for the appellant to place the true facts before the court as there was no proper or effective service of notice of the proceedings on him. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to set aside the ex parte order passed against the appellant in the proceedings as also the award passed in the claim petition and to direct the Tribunal to consider the claim petition afresh.

¶47

In the result, the order setting the appellant ex-parte in the proceedings as also the impugned award are set aside and

¶48

MACA.No.1328/2015.

¶49

¶50

the Tribunal is directed to consider the claim petition afresh. The amount deposited by the appellant for the purpose of preferring this appeal as provided for under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act shall be refunded to him. The registry is also directed to return to the appellant the original documents produced by him in this appeal. All the interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed.

¶51

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶52

Kvs/-

¶53

// true copy //

¶54

PA TO JUDGE.

Anilkumar v. Beena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar v. Beena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indu Vs Ponnappan

T.v.Hassankoya Vs M.Rajan

K.E.Abel Vs Kallaappan

Baby Vs Alex Montiero @ Alexander Xavier

P.Muralidharan Vs the Regional Director

All Kerala Pulayar Mahasabha Vs Ananeetham Poikayil Swathanthra Dyaiva Sabha