Remanded

K.Muralieedharan Nair v. Aneesh Kumar

Kerala HC14 Nov 2016MACA/1741/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal by a registered owner seeking to charge subsequent owners for accident liability. The Court held that the civil court lacks jurisdiction to determine such ownership claims under Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act and remitted the matter to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The matter is remitted to the M.A.C.T, Attingal, for adjudication of the appellant's claim against the 4th respondent or subsequent owners.

K.Muralieedharan Nair Vs Aneesh Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/23RD KARTHIKA, 1938 MACA.No. 1741 of 2012 () ------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1576/2003 of M.A.C.T.,ATTINGAL DATED 29-04-2010 APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------

¶3

K.MURALIEEDHARAN NAIR, T.C.8/1590, KALIYATHRA VEEDU, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.MANU V.

¶4

RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANT & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 : --------------------------------------------

¶5

ANEESH KUMAR, S/O.SATHEESH KUMAR, INDIRA VILASOM, PANTHAPLAVU, KALATTUKAVU, VATTAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 028.

¶6

SHIBU, S/O.SREEDHARAN, VALICODE KIZHAKKETHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PANTHAPLAVU, VATTAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695028.

¶7

M/S.THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, PLOT NO.1345/C2, NEAR MUNICIPAL BUS STAND, MAIN ROAD, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695101. 4. KANAKARAJ, S/O.PALAYYAN, PAMMAVARCKAL KEEZHE PUTHEN VEEDU, KAVUMPURATHU, VELIYAMCODE P.O., MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695121. *5.BABU S/O.GOPALAN, MUDUMBIL VEEDU, THIRUVALLOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009.(DELETED)

¶8

(*RESPONDENT NO.5 IS DELETED FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES, VIDE ORDER DATED 11.01.2013 IN I.A.NO.3054 OF 2012 IN MACA.NO.1741/12)

¶9

R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.J.JAYAKUMAR ABRAHAM R BY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN

¶10

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

P.V.ASHA, J.

¶12

M.A.C.A No.1741 of 2012-E

¶13

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2016

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The appellant, who is the 1^st respondent in O.P(MV). No.1576 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (`Tribunal' for short), Attingal, has filed this appeal in so far as the insurance company is permitted to recover the compensation awarded to the claimant, from him.

¶16

The claimant before the Tribunal sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 21.09.2003, while travelling in an autoriskshaw driven by the 2^nd respondent. The Tribunal found negligence on the part of 2^nd respondent and awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.50,692 along with interest, which should be paid by the insurance company and permitted the insurance company to realize the same from the appellant, since the 2^nd respondent was not having any driving license.

¶17

The case of the appellant is that even though the registration certificate of autorikshaw with registration number

¶18

M.A.C.A No.1741 of 2012-E 2

¶19

KBV 84 continues to have his name as its registered owner as on the date of the accident on 21.9.2003, he had already transferred the vehicle on 10.08.1995 to the additional 4^th respondent. The additional 4^th respondent had filed a written statement before the Tribunal admitting that transfer in his favour but stating that he had again transferred the vehicle to additional 5^th respondent .

¶20

The 2^nd respondent, even though appeared before this Court through counsel originally, at a time when this Court had passed an interim order on 06.11.2012 directing him to produce the driving licence which he possessed on the date of the accident and to file an affidavit, disclosing the name of the person authorised by him to drive the autorickshaw involved in the accident and posted the case to 3.1.2013, neither produced the licence nor filed any affidavit. Subsequently, the learned counsel who appeared for the 2^nd respondent submitted that there was no instructions from the client and the counsel thereafter relinquished the vakalat.

¶21

The case of the appellant is that he did not have any control over the 2^nd respondent, who was driving the vehicle at

¶22

M.A.C.A No.1741 of 2012-E 3

¶23

the relevant time. As per the sale letter while transferring the vehicle to the additional 4^th respondent, the additional 4^th respondent had undertaken all liabilities that may arise in connection with the vehicle. However, the right of the appellant to claim the compensation, which he is directed to pay to the insurance company from the 4^th respondent in terms of the agreement executed, could not be adjudicated before the award was passed.

¶24

In paragraph 12 of the award, the M.A.C.T has referred to the written statements filed by the appellant as well as the additional 4^th respondent. While the appellant stated that he was not responsible for payment of compensation, in view of the transfer of the vehicle to Sri Kanakaraj, who was the additional 4^th respondent, on 10.8.1995, the additional 4^th respondent filed a written statement saying that he had sold that vehicle to the additional 5^th respondent on 3.11.1995. But it is found that there is no such addressee available in the said address on taking out notice to the additional 5^th respondent. Appellant thereupon deleted the name of the additional 5^th

¶25

M.A.C.A No.1741 of 2012-E 4

¶26

respondent from the party array. The 2^nd respondent withdrew himself from the proceedings before this court subsequent to the interim order directing him to produce license was issued. There is no appearance for the additional 4^th respondent before this Court. The claim of the appellant to recover the compensation to be paid to the insurance company from the subsequent owner is not seen adjudicated.

¶27

The appellant submits that the original of the sale letter by which the vehicle was transferred could not be produced before the court below. In the said sale letter, the 4^th respondent has undertaken to meet all the liabilities that may be caused in respect of the vehicle. Since the 4^th respondent has already admitted the sale by filing the written statement saying that he had already transferred the vehicle to a third party, the fact that the original of the sale letter is not with the appellant cannot stand in the way of a proper adjudication.

¶28

In the light of Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the civil court does not have any jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which is to be

¶29

M.A.C.A No.1741 of 2012-E 5

¶30

adjudicated by the claims tribunal. This position has been upheld by this Court in the judgments reported in Sreekumar v. Abdeen [2013 (3) KLT 542] and Baby Varghese v. Anitha Roy [2015 (3) KLT 78]. Therefore, the claim, if any, of the appellant who continues to be the registered owner in respect of the vehicle can be adjudicated only before the M.A.C.T. Therefore, I am of the view that the prayer of the appellant for remanding the matter for the limited purpose of adjudication of his claim as against the 4^th respondent or the subsequent person, who was in the ownership of the vehicle at the relevant time of the accident, is justified.

¶31

Therefore, without disturbing the award relating to compensation to the claimant by the insurance company and the right of the insurance company to recover the amount from the appellant, the matter is remitted back to the M.A.C.T, Attingal, for the purpose of adjudication of the claim of the appellant as against the 4^th respondent or any other person to whom the vehicle was transferred further and was having control of the 2^nd respondent vested, at the relevant time. Appellant shall be

¶32

M.A.C.A No.1741 of 2012-E 6

¶33

permitted to adduce evidence, if necessary, by impleading proper parties in order to adjudicate the issue.

¶34

The appellant shall appear before the M.A.C.T on

¶35

15.12.2016.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

¶38

rtr/

¶39

/true copy/

¶40

P.S to Judge

K.Muralieedharan Nair v. Aneesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Muralieedharan Nair v. Aneesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soumini P. Vs State of Kerala

Apple a Day Properties Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

P.P.Koya Vs the South Indian Bank Ltd.

N.Venkateswara Pai Vs Union of India & Another

Isha Shahul Hameed Vs the Director Ihrd

Mathai & Another Vs the District Collector & Others