Allowed

Sukumaran Achary v. the Managing Director

Kerala HC18 Sept 2017MACA/505/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal contested the MACT's dismissal of a claim petition due to unexamined documents. The High Court set aside the dismissal, directing remittal of the case to the Tribunal for fresh consideration based on the filed documentary evidence. The appellant was allowed to adduce oral evidence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; the MACT's dismissal is set aside; the matter is remitted to MACT, Kollam for fresh consideration.

Sukumaran Achary Vs the Managing Director — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/27TH BHADRA, 1939

¶5

MACA.No. 505 of 2017 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 613/2011 of M.A.C.T.,KOLLAM DATED 26-03-2014

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

--------------------SUKUMARAN ACHARY AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN ACHARY, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHERUCODE, KUMMIL P.O., KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.RENY ANTO

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

-------------------------1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. R.K.V.MOTOR & TIMBERS PVT. LTD., ATTINGAL-695 101.

¶12

2. MOHANDAS S/O.PADMANABHAN, PARVATHI BHAVAN, VALAVUPACHA, CHITHARA P.O., KADAKKAL, KOLLAM-691 536. 3. THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BO ATTINGAL-695 101. R3 BY ADV. SMT.K.SHERIN MOHAN R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI R BY SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD

¶13

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

acd

¶15

P.D.RAJAN, J.

¶16

M.A.C.A.No.505 of 2017

¶17

Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2017

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is preferred against the dismissal of O.P.(MV)No.613/2011 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam (for short 'MACT') by the petitioner. On 3.12.2009 at about 10 a.m, appellant was waiting for bus in

¶20

front of Rajeena Bakery, by the side of Kadakkal bus stand, at that time, a bus KL-01/W-2772 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the appellant, as a result

¶21

he sustained serious injuries. The driver and the owner of the vehicle were set ex parte in the tribunal. The insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle. The claimant/appellant produced Exts.A1 to A9 as his documentary evidence, but he did not adduce any oral evidence, hence the tribunal dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by that, the claimant preferred this appeal.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant sustained injuries in the motor

¶23

M.A.C.A.No.505/2017 2

¶24

accident. Exts.A1 is the FIR registered by the Kadakkal

¶25

Police. Ext.A2 is the wound certificate, which shows that the appellant sustained injuries in the motor accident. Ext.A1 shows that the accident was due to the negligence of the bus. Ext.A4 is the scene mahazar. In a motor accident claim, it is the responsibility of the claimant to prove before tribunal that he sustained injuries in a motor accident. For that, oral and documentary evidence are necessary. The learned tribunal observed that the claimant was consumed alcohol and dismissed the claim petition. A perusal of the document shows that the dismissal of the claim petition by MACT without taking evidence is not proper. The tribunal is bound to consider the claim petition on the basis of oral and documentary evidence and verify whether the claimant was negligent for the accident. Since the appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident, he is at liberty to adduce oral evidence with regard to the accident. In the circumstances, the dismissal of the claim petition by the tribunal is set aside

¶26

M.A.C.A.No.505/2017

¶27

¶28

and the matter is remitted to MACT, Kollam for fresh consideration as per law. Both parties are directed to

¶29

appear before MACT, Kollam on 31.10.2017.

¶30

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

¶31

P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE.

¶32

acd

Sukumaran Achary v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumaran Achary v. the Managing Director

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

Uno Security Service Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

Sunil Kumar Vs the Manager

Majeed C.A. Vs Dishi

A.M.Parameswaran Namboothiripad Vs Guruvayoor Devaswom Committee

Ajayakumar Vs Prasad

V.v.Kumaran Vs Sureshbabu