Dismissed

Bindu v. Prasad.K.P

Kerala HC22 Jun 2018MACA/1445/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed appeals preferred by the owner of a vehicle against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award granting compensation to deceased persons. The Tribunal had directed the insurer to pay the award, noting the absence of valid evidence that the driver held a license, holding this direction merited.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal order directing the insurer to satisfy the award is upheld.

Bindu Vs Prasad.K.P — Insurance | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

MACA.NO. 1445 OF 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.91/2009 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 03-10-2012

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS:-

¶8

BINDU, AGED 43, W/O.KRISHNAKUMAR, MANIMANDIRAM, CHEMPU P.O., VAIKOM.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.S.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:-:

¶11

1. PRASAD.K.P S/O.PONNAPPAN, KOTTARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMACHADITHURUTIL, POOTHOTTA P.O., MANAKKUNAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., T.H.TOWER, P.B.NO.1390/7A, STADIUM ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶13

3. SHEEJA SUDHAKARAN,AGED 36, W/O.SUDHAKARAN, KAPPALUNKAL HOUSE, PUTHANAGADI COLONY, AROOR P.O., AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER

¶15

R3 BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP

¶16

SMT.T.MANASY

¶17

BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)

¶18

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-06-2018, ALONG WITH M.A.C.A NO.1444 OF 2013,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

P.D. RAJAN, J.

¶21

M.A.C.A. Nos.1444 & 1445 of 2013

¶22

---------------------------------Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2018

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

These appeals are preferred against the award in O.P.(M.V.) Nos.91 of 2009 and 102 of 2009 of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam by the owner of the vehicle. In O.P.(M.V.) No.102 of 2009 the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.96,197/- (Rupees Ninety Six Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Seven only) and in O.P.(M.V.) No.90 of 2009 the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.22,610/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Ten only) as compensation with 9% interest and proportionate cost. Insurer was directed to satisfy the award and reimburse the amount from the owner of the vehicle. Being aggrieved by that, the owner of the vehicle preferred these appeals.

¶25

There was no dispute with regard to the

¶26

accident in the lower court. Claimants case in the lower

¶27

court was that while they were travelling as a rider and

¶28

M.A.C.A. Nos.1444 & 1445 of 2013 2

¶29

pillion rider in a motorcycle KL7-04/1418 on 31.10.2008 along Vaikom-Thrippunitura public road and when he reached near Choorakkad, a mini tipper lorry KL-04/U-7561 came from the southern side and it hit against the motorcycle as a result, they sustained serious injuries. The accident was due to the negligence of the driver of a tipper lorry. In the lower court, the appellant owner filed a written statement and contended that the driver was not rash and negligent. 3^rd respondent admitted the insurance of the vehicle, but contended that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence and badge at the time of accident. Both cases O.P.(M.V.) Nos.91 of 2009 and 102 of 2009 were tried jointly and they did not adduce any oral evidence, but their documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A15 and Ext.C1. Ext.A2 is the copy of the charge sheet which shows that the driver of the Mini tipper lorry was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and he was charge sheeted under Sections 279, 377 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.3(1) read with Sec.181 of the Motor

¶30

M.A.C.A. Nos.1444 & 1445 of 2013 3

¶31

Vehicles Act.

¶32

There was no evidence from the side of the appellant to show that the driver was holding a valid driving licence. If that be the position, the learned Tribunal rightly directed the insurer to satisfy the award and reimburse the amount from the owner of the vehicle. I find no illegality in the above direction. There is no merit in these appeals and are dismissed accordingly.

¶33

Sd/- P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE

¶34

¶35

/True Copy/ P.A. To Judge

Bindu v. Prasad.K.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindu v. Prasad.K.P

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

Ajesh Kumar.K Vs Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Preetha Tillu

Umaiban @ Umaibanu Vs K.P.Prabhakaran

Mohammed Sheriff Vs Fathima Shifa @ Shifa

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Prabeesh

Bindu Vs Prasad.K.P.