Remanded

Rajan Pillai v. Sanilkumar R

Kerala HC9 Feb 2017MACA/2106/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal arose from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal order dismissing a compensation claim under Sec. 163(A) due to the appellant's alleged high income. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration allowing amendment of the claim.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal order is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration; the petitioner may amend the claim.

Rajan Pillai Vs Sanilkumar R — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/20TH MAGHA 1938

¶5

MACA.No. 2106 of 2015 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1374/2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM DATED 16-01-2015

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

RAJAN PILLAI, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.VELAPPAN PILLAI, KUNNATHU VEEDU, KUZHIYAM, CHEMMAKKADU P.O., KOLLAM, PIN: 691 603.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP SRI.V.JAYADHAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. SANILKUMAR R KUNNATHU VEEDU, KUZHIYAM, CHEMMAKKADU P.O., KOLLAM, PIN: 691 603.

¶12

2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, KOLLAM-691001.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

P.D. RAJAN, J.

¶17

M.A.C.A. No.2106 of 2015

¶18

Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2017

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

---------------------

¶21

The claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No.1374 of 2011 of

¶22

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam preferred this appeal. The appellant's case is that on 25.04.2011 at 10.00 a.m., he sustained injuries in an accident occurred at Cherumood Junction when he was travelling in a motorcycle KL-02-U-8518. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent. Immediately, he was removed to a hospital and after completion of his treatment, he preferred a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam under Secs.140, 165 & 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Subsequently, the claim was amended and preferred under Sec.163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. He was examined as PW1 and his documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A8. The monthly income of the appellant was shown as Rs.6,000/- in the claim petition. The learned Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that the

¶23

M.A.C.A. No.2106 of 2015 2

¶24

income is above Rs.4,000/- and he is not entitled to claim relief under Sec.163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Being aggrieved by that, he preferred this appeal.

¶25

Sec.163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

¶26

reads as follows:

¶27

Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis :- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.

¶28

Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, “permanent disability” shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923).

¶29

(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.

¶30

(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule.

¶31

M.A.C.A. No.2106 of 2015 3

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant admitted that there was a mistake committed by the appellant and the person whose annual income is above Rs.40,000/- is not entitled to get compensation under Sec.163(A).

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the total annual income of the appellant is Rs.72,000/- and he is not entitled to get any amount under Sec.163(A). It is true that he was working in an Ayurvedic Hospital as a Peon and was getting Rs.6,000/- per month. He was a pillion rider at the time of accident. In the written statement, the Insurance Company contended that there was valid Policy but the coverage of the pillion rider has to be examined. Considering the above facts, the claim under Sec.163(A) is not maintainable.

¶34

In the circumstances, the order of the

¶35

Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration under Sec.166 of the MV Act. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the trial

¶36

M.A.C.A. No.2106 of 2015 4

¶37

court and amend the claim under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If such an application is made, the Tribunal is at liberty to consider the claim under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Both parties are at liberty to adduce fresh evidence in the Tribunal.

¶38

This M.A.C.A. is disposed of as above.

¶39

Sd/- P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE

¶40

¶41

/ True Copy /

¶42

P.A. To Judge

Rajan Pillai v. Sanilkumar R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Pillai v. Sanilkumar R

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

Metro Trading Company Vs Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer Palakkad

Abdul Rasheed Vs Kabeer

Rahim Vs Abdul Karim

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs C.R.Kishoremon and Others

Raveendran Vs P.a.Sajeer

George Vs the Manager