Allowed

Sree Ramakrishna Asramam v. Asiz

Kerala HC30 Mar 2016MACA/3167/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed an Motor Accidents Claims Appeal challenging the Tribunal's dismissal of a claim petition due to procedural defects in the representation of the Ashram. The Court held that the Tribunal failed to afford the claimant an opportunity to amend the petition and set aside the impugned orders, directing the Tribunal to dispose afresh without interest for appeal delay. (Approx. 45

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders in the claim petition and the application to amend are set aside; I.A.No.16 of 2012 allowed; Tribunal directed to dispose of claim petition afresh.

Sree Ramakrishna Asramam Vs Asiz — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/10TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

MACA.No. 3167 of 2014

¶6

O.P.(MV)NO.1605/2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKARA.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SREE RAMAKRISHNA ASRAMAM, P.O.BOX NO.55, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA (DIST), - 690502, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. ASIZ, SANKIRANTHIKULATHIL HOUSE, KARIMULAKKEL MURI, CHUNAKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA - 690 534.

¶12

2. SHIJAN, NAYAKANDEPARAMBIL VEEDU, ERUVA SOUTH MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM - 690 508.

¶13

3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.SANIL KUNJACHAN R2 BY ADV. SMT.S.L.SYLAJA R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR BY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

mbr/

¶17

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶18

M.A.C.A.No.3167 of 2014

¶19

Dated this the 30^th day of March, 2016

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The claimant in a proceedings for compensation

¶22

before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has come up in this appeal challenging the decision of the Tribunal in the claim petition.

¶23

The claimant is an Ashram. A Hermit of the claimant Ashram namely Narayana Theerthapadar @ Narayanan Nair died on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident took place on 27.10.2002, involving a vehicle owned by the second respondent and driven by the first respondent. The third respondent is the insurer of the vehicle. Since the deceased was a Hermit attached to the Ashram, the Ashram filed the claim petition. The claim petition was verified and signed on behalf of the Ashram by

¶24

M.A.C.A.No.3167 of 2014

¶25

¶26

its Chief Hermit. During 2012, when the claim petition came up for trial, it was noticed that as per the bye laws of the Ashram, the Ashram is to be represented by its Secretary in judicial proceedings and as such, the claim petition should have been verified and signed by the Secretary of the Ashram, instead of the Chief Hermit. Consequently, with a view to rectify the said defect in the proceedings, the claimant preferred an application as I.A.No.16 of 2012 seeking leave of the Tribunal to carry out appropriate amendments to the claim petition. The following are the amendments sought in the claim petition:

¶27

In the cause title of the OP in the column of the address of the petitioner the sentence “Rep: by its chief hermit Swamy Kyvalyananda” may be strike out and the Secretary may be add by amending as “Rep: by its Secretary D.Aswani Dev.”

¶28

In the last portion of the cause title of the O.P the sentence “I Swamy Kyvalayananda, chief Hermit of the Rama Krishna Ashramam” may be amended as “I, D. Aswani Dev, Secretary of Sree Ramakrishna Ashramam.”

¶29

M.A.C.A.No.3167 of 2014

¶30

¶31

In column No.20 of the OP “Rep: by its Chief Hermit Swamy Kyvalyananda” may be amended as “Rep: by its Secretary, D. Aswani Dev.

¶32

In column No.21 of the OP, the sentence, “Society registered under Act X11 of the Societies Registration Act 1965” may be inserted instead of the word “trust”

¶33

In the 3^rd para of column No.28 of the O.P, the sentence”, which is a society registered under the Act X11 of the societies Registration Act 1965 may be inserted after the 1^st sentence.

¶34

In the last portion of the OP and in Verification column, the sentence “Rep: by its chief Hermit Swamy Kyvalyananda” may be amended as “Rep by its Secretary, D. Aswanidev.”

¶35

Since the Ashram was represented in the claim petition by its Chief Hermit, I.A.No.16 of 2012 was also filed by the Chief Hermit of the Ashram. The application for amendment filed by the claimant was dismissed by the Tribunal holding that the same was filed by the person who has no authority to represent the Ashram. It is also held by the Tribunal in the order passed on I.A.No.16 of 2012 that if the said application is allowed, the Secretary of the Ashram will be

¶36

M.A.C.A.No.3167 of 2014

¶37

¶38

automatically made responsible for the contents of the claim petition without his knowledge. Since it was disclosed to the Tribunal that the person who verified and signed the claim petition on behalf of the Ashram was not the person competent to represent the Ashram, the claim petition was

¶39

also dismissed by the Tribunal by a separate order on the same day on which I.A.No.16 of 2012 was dismissed. The claimant is aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal and hence this appeal.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant

¶41

as also the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

¶42

The appeal is preferred on behalf of the Ashram by its Secretary who is competent to represent the Ashram, as provided for in the bye-laws of the Ashram. In other words, the Secretary of the Ashram has ratified the institution of the claim petition. As indicated above, the only defect in the proceedings was that the claim petition

¶43

M.A.C.A.No.3167 of 2014

¶44

¶45

was verified and signed by the Chief Hermit of the Ashram in the place of its Secretary. In other words, the defect in the claim petition was the mis-description of the claimant. It is settled that the mis-description of a party in a proceedings can be corrected at any time by amending the proceedings. True, the application filed seeking leave of the Tribunal to amend the claim petition was filed by the Chief Hermit of the Ashram and not the Secretary of the Ashram who is competent to file the application. But, the question is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application for amendment filed on behalf of the claimant on that ground. Even if the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application for amendment on that ground, the larger question is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition also on that ground without affording the claimant an opportunity to file a proper application for amendment of the claim petition. As noted

¶46

M.A.C.A.No.3167 of 2014

¶47

¶48

above, the claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal on the day on which I.A.No.16 of 2012 was dismissed. According to me, the procedure adopted by the Tribunal in dealing with the claim petition is wholly unjustified. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act which enables the victims of motor accidents to prefer applications for compensation is a legislation intended for the benefit of the victims of motor accidents and their successors. Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that even a report of the accident forwarded to the Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated by the Tribunal as an application for compensation. In other words, even an application is not required for the Tribunal to grant compensation to the victim of a motor accident. In view of the aforesaid scheme of the provision, according to me, the Tribunal ought to have given the claimant an opportunity to prefer a proper application for amending the claim petition to correct the

¶49

M.A.C.A.No.3167 of 2014

¶50

¶51

mis-description of the claimant before dismissing the claim petition as defective. The impugned decision of the Tribunal, in the circumstances, is liable to be interfered with.

¶52

The learned counsel for the insurer

¶53

contended that since the claim petition was dismissed on account of the mistake committed by the claimant, the insurer may not be fastened with the liability to pay interest for the compensation, if any, found payable to the claimant after the impugned decision. I do not find any substance in this argument. Since it is found that the impugned order is illegal, the claimant cannot be made responsible for the same nor can he be denied any benefit which he is entitled to, but for the illegal order passed by the Tribunal.

¶54

In the result, the impugned order passed in the claim petition as also the order on I.A.No.16 of 2012 filed in the claim petition are set aside. I.A.No.16 of 2012

¶55

M.A.C.A.No.3167 of 2014

¶56

¶57

will stand allowed. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the claim petition afresh. It is, however, clarified that the claimant will not be entitled to interest for the compensation, if any, found payable for the period of delay in filing the appeal, namely, 733 days, as ordered in C.M.Application No.3648 of 2014.

¶58

The M.A.C.A. is allowed as above.

¶59

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶60

smm

Sree Ramakrishna Asramam v. Asiz

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Ramakrishna Asramam v. Asiz

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

Maramkollil Ponnachan Vs Vattakkalayil Ponnamma

Alathiyoor Cheriyamundam Hanumankavu Vs Kayalmadathil Muhammed @ Bappu Haji

K.S.Eappan Vs Gcda Rep. by Its Secretary

Smart Security and Secret Service Agency Vs State Bank of India

Avanukkumkalathil Sreedharan Vs Avanukkumkalathil Madhavan

Ammini Vs Sethu Rathnam