Allowed

T.v.Hassankoya v. M.Rajan

Kerala HC2 Feb 2016MACA/2083/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant, owner of the damaged property, challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's dismissal of his claim petition for lack of evidence and failure to prove documents. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the tribunal's award, and remitted the claim petition for fresh disposal on merits.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the impugned award of the tribunal was set aside; and the claim petition was remitted to the tribunal for fresh disposal on merits within six months.

T.v.Hassankoya Vs M.Rajan — 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. 2083 of 2015

¶6

O.P.(M.V)NO.275/2014 OF THE PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER :

¶8

T.V.HASSANKOYA, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. BEERAN KUTTY, SHEROOKK HOUSE, 185 (1/252), THATTARAVAYALIL ANDIKODE, THALAKULATHUR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.BINITHA JAMES

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :

¶11

1. M.RAJAN, S/O. MADHAVAN, T.C 22/352 (3), SARANYA, IRANIMUTTOM, MANACADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 009.

¶12

2. RAJESH K.R., S/O.RAJAPPAN, KUDASSERI HOUSE, CHALIYAPALAM, PATTATHUPADI, CHENDAMANGALAM, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM- 682 060.

¶13

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, “PADMASREE”, NEAR BUS STAND, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 695 121.

¶14

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL

¶15

SRI.R.B.RAJESH

¶16

R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.S.NAJEEB BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANTHI

¶17

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

¶18

Msd.

¶19

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶20

M.A.C.A.No.2083 of 2015

¶21

Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2016

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The award in a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is under challenge in this appeal.

¶24

The claimant in the proceedings is the appellant.

¶25

The claim petition was filed alleging that

¶26

damage was caused to the compound wall of the house of the claimant in an accident took place on 12.9.2013 involving a vehicle owned by the first respondent. The third respondent was the insurer of the vehicle at the time of accident. The claim petition was opposed by the third respondent. It is seen that though a few documents were produced by the claimant in support of the case set up by him, the documents were not proved by examining the

¶27

M.A.C.A.No.2083 of 2015 2

¶28

persons concerned. The claimant has also not given evidence in the case. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition due the said reasons. The claimant who is aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal has thus come up in this appeal.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶30

True, it was obligatory for the claimant to adduce evidence in support of his case. It was also obligatory for him to prove the documents which he relies on in support of the claim. As such, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for having dismissed the claim petition on the grounds stated in the award. The proceedings before the Tribunal being summary in nature, it is beyond dispute that the claim petitions before the Tribunals are presently disposed of based on pleadings of the parties and the documents produced by them, unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. As such, I deem it appropriate to afford the

¶31

M.A.C.A.No.2083 of 2015 3

¶32

claimant another opportunity to adduce evidence in the claim petition.

¶33

In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned award is set aside and the claim petition is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I deem it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to dispose of the claim petition finally on merits within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶35

smm

T.v.Hassankoya v. M.Rajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.v.Hassankoya v. M.Rajan

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

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

Indu Vs Ponnappan

K.E.Abel Vs Kallaappan

Devayani Vs Lekha