Allowed

Muhammad Shafi v. Enu

Kerala HC18 Jun 2018MACA/1535/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The Court, relying on Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, held that since the driver held a valid licence for a light motor vehicle, the insurer must satisfy the award rather than the owner being reimbursed.

What did the court decide?

Direction given to the insurer to satisfy the award instead of reimbursing the driver and owner; appeal disposed of.

Muhammad Shafi Vs Enu — Insurance | Kerala HC (2018)

¶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 JUNE 2018 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 1535 of 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 627/2013 of M.A.C.T OTTAPPALAM DATED 05-05-2015

¶7

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶8

1 MUHAMMAD SHAFI, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O ISHAQ HAJI, OTTUPURA HOUSE, KIZHATTUR, THACHIGANAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2 ABDUL SALAM, S/O USMAN, KARAT HOUSE, THACHINANGADAM, PATTIKKAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.K.DILIP

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO 2:

¶12

1. ENU, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED, KALATHIVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHALISSERY, KOTTANAD, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶13

2. THE ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, 414, VEER SAVARKAR MARG, NEW SIDHI VINAYAK TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI 400 025.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

BNG

¶17

P.D.RAJAN, J

¶18

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

¶19

M.A.C.A No.1535 of 2016

¶20

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18^th day of June, 2018

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is preferred against the award in OP(MV) No.627/2013 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam by the driver and owner of the vehicle. The second appellant's vehicle KL-53 E-3502 met with an accident on 15.06.2013 at 9.00 am and the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,54,500/- with interest and cost as compensation to the injured and directed the insurer to satisfy the award and realise the amount from the driver and owner. Being aggrieved by that, they preferred this appeal.

¶23

In the lower court, the claimant's case is that, he was walking along the side of the road, good carrier KL-53 E-3502 driven in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and knocked him down and he sustained serious injuries. Immediately, he was removed to hospital. The driver and owner of the vehicle filed a

¶24

M.A.C.A No.1535 of 2016 -2-

¶25

written statement and disputed the negligence. The insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle, but contended that the driver was not holding valid driving licence. The claimant did not adduce any oral evidence, but his documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A9. Respondents documents were marked as Ext.B1.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the driver was holding valid driving licence at the time of accident. This fact was mentioned in his written statement and he failed to produce the driving licence before court, but he produced the driving licence in this appeal. Annexure A2 is the copy of the driving licence, which was already marked as Ext.A5 by the Tribunal. As per Ext.A5, the driver was holding valid driving licence in respect of Light Motor Vehicle from 19.04.2011. In view of the decision of Apex court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd [2017(3) KLT 1000 (SC)] , the vehicle was a light motor vehicle and appellant has holding valid driving licence on the date of accident, the insurer has to

¶27

M.A.C.A No.1535 of 2016

¶28

-3-

¶29

pay the compensation. Annexure III shows valid permit to goods vehicle.

¶30

In the circumstance, the direction to reimburse the amount from the driver and owner is hereby set aside and the insurer/3^rd respondent in the OP(MV), who is the 2^nd respondent in this appeal, is directed to satisfy the award and this appeal is disposed of with the above direction.

¶31

Sd/- P.D.RAJAN

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

bng

Muhammad Shafi v. Enu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammad Shafi v. Enu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.Rajappan Pillai Vs N.K.Muhammed Sherief

George @ Abraham George Vs K.K.George

Nagappan @ Rajan @ Mahima Raj Vs Gangadharan

Ramesh Vs Mani

Krishnakumari.E.and Others Vs T.R.Balakrishnan and Others

Johny K.O Vs Biji Anilkumar