Remanded

Krishnakumar v. Laila

Kerala HC2 Mar 2017MACA/543/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed the appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's dismissal of a claim. The court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to give the appellants an opportunity to apply for amendment of the income details in their claim petition.

What did the court decide?

The award dismissing the claim in O.P.(M.V)No.789/2007 is quashed and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after affording an opportunity to file an amendment application.

Krishnakumar Vs Laila — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

& THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/11TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶6

MACA.No. 543 of 2017 ()

¶7

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 789/2007 of M.A.C.T.,ATTINGAL DATED 30-04-2016

¶8

APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS:

¶9

1. KRISHNAKUMAR AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. C.P RAVEENDRAN, TC28/532, KUZHIVILAKATHU HOUSE, KAITHAMUKU PETTAH P.O TRIVANDRUM.

¶10

2. VIVEK S/O. C.P. RAVEENDRAN,TC28/532, KUZHIVILAKATHU HOUSE, KAITHAMUKU PETTAH P.O TRIVANDRUM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1. LAILA

¶14

10/215, KALLAMPOTTAYIL, ARAMALLOOR, KANDALAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695001

¶15

2. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,

¶16

1ST FLOOR, REMAPLAZA, S.S. KOVIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶17

R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.P.K.PANICKER R BY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN

¶18

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

C.K.ABDUL REHIM & SHIRCY.V,JJ

¶20

M.A.C.A.No. 543 of 2017

¶21

Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2017

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

C.K.Abdul Rehim,J.

¶24

Claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal in O.P(M.V)No.789/2007 are the appellants herein, challenging the dismissal of the claim, which was filed under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶25

In the accident in question, which occurred on 2.2.2007, a husband and wife who were travelling in a car

¶26

died due to injuries sustained when the car collided with a pickup autorickshaw came from the opposite direction. A criminal case registered with respect to the accident indicated that, the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased husband. The legal heirs/dependants of both the deceased have filed applications seeking compensation under Section 163A, as O.P(M.V) No.618/2007 in the case of the death of the husband and as

¶27

MACA 543/2017

¶28

¶29

O.P(M.V)No.789/2007 in the case of death of the wife. The monthly income of the deceased mentioned in the claim petitions were, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5000/- in O.P (M.V)Nos.618/2007 and 789/2007 respectively. In O.P (M.V)No.618/2007 the petitioners have filed an amendment application substituting the income of the deceased as Rs.3250/- per month. The Tribunal allowed the amendment application and the claim was awarded in the said case. But in O.P(M.V)No.789/2007 no amendment was filed. As the income of the deceased stated in the claim petition was Rs.5000/- per month, the Tribunal found that the claim will not fall within the purview of Section 163A. Consequently the claim petition in O.P(M.V)No.789/2007 was dismissed. It is challenging the said award, the above appeal is filed.

¶30

Heard, the counsel for the appellants as well as Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent Insurance Company.

¶31

MACA 543/2017

¶32

¶33

Contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for appellants are that, the income of Rs.5000/- shown in the claim petition was only by way of a mistake committed by the lawyer who was appearing before the Tribunal. The said amount was shown in the claim petition not on the basis of any instructions given by the appellants. It is further contended that it was only due to an oversight and omission on the part of the lawyer that no amendment was sought for in the claim petition. Hence it is appealed to this court that an opportunity may be given to the appellants to approach the Tribunal seeking amendment of the claim petition.

¶34

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent Insurance Company contended that, no equitable relief as prayed for can be granted in view of the legal position that a claimant who is not falling within the category as mentioned under Section 163A cannot be permitted to raise a claim by limiting his/her income.

¶35

MACA 543/2017

¶36

¶37

While considering the rival contentions, we take note of the fact that the Tribunal had permitted amendment in the connected case and awarded compensation. It is only just and equitable that the appellants herein also be permitted to approach the Tribunal seeking amendment. Of course, it is left open to the respondents to oppose such amendment application on all grounds available. For the above said purpose, we feel it appropriate to make a remand of the matter to the Tribunal.

¶38

Hence, the appeal is allowed to the extent of quashing the award in O.P(M.V)No.789/2007. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal of O.P(M.V) No.789/2007, after affording an opportunity to the appellants to file application seeking amendment. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion regarding the maintainability of the amendment and the Tribunal has to take an independent decision on the said

MACA 543/2017

aspect.

The parties will appear before the Tribunal on

¶43

5.4.2017.

¶44

C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶45

SHIRCY.V JUDGE

¶46

smm

Krishnakumar v. Laila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnakumar v. Laila

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

M.R.Rajendran Vs the Managing Director

K.K.Sadanandan Vs the M.D., Kerala State Co-Op.Consumer

Vasu Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

S.Anilkumar Vs Suresh.N.

Lathef v K @ Abdul Latheef Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.

Chandran Vs Manikandan and 2 Others