Allowed

Musthafa Ramazan v. Puthanpurakkal Joseph

Kerala HC23 Oct 2018MACA/2101/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissal as flawed due to lack of quantifiable evidence, yet overturned it to award Rs.25,000 for vehicle repairs based on acknowledged damages. The insurer was directed to pay within 30 days plus subsequent interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs.25,000 awarded with 6% interest; insurer directed to pay within 30 days or face 12% interest.

Musthafa Ramazan Vs Puthanpurakkal Joseph — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 2101 of 2005

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 700/1999 of M.A.C.T., THALASSERY DATED 12-05-2005

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

MUSTHAFA RAMAZAN, S/O.RAMAZAN, MOOYIKKAL HOUSE, P.O. IRITTY-670 703,, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH (SR.) SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 PUTHANPURAKKAL JOSEPH JOY, S/O.CHAKKO, CHUZHALI AMSOM, THOPPILAYI DESOM, P.O. CHUZHALI.

¶12

2 KUZHITHOTTA JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH NIDIYANGA AMSOM, KARAYATHUMCHAL DESOM,, P.O. NIDIYANGA.

¶13

3 THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SHOAN COMPLEX,, 1ST FLOOR, BAZAR ROAD, COCHIN-2.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR (128/84)

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

MACA.No. 2101 of 2005

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P. (MV)No.700/1999 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery by the owner of the vehicle. On 06.04.1996, the appellant was travelling from Kannur to Iritty, when he reached at Nedumunda bridge, another lorry KL7/D 2723 came in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the appellant's car, as a result, the front portion of the vehicle completely damaged. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by that, he preferred this appeal.

¶20

In the lower court, the second respondent contended that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver and he has no liability to pay compensation for such fault. The third respondent admitted the insurance of the vehicle. The first respondent was set ex-parte. The claimant did not adduce any oral evidence, but his documents were marked as Exts. A1 to A6.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the vehicle was imported from Japan and he spent huge amount for repairing it. The front bumper

¶22

MACA.No. 2101 of 2005

¶23

¶24

and other front portion of the vehicle were fully damaged and he could not produce a survey report in the lower court, therefore, no amount was awarded by the Tribunal and the claim petition was dismissed.

¶25

In a case where the owner of the vehicle sustained damages to his vehicle he can seek a sum from the tortfeasor. In case if he had obtained an own damage claim from his insurer and fully compensated, he cannot seek the same from the tortfeasor. However, if the claim is not allowed

¶26

from his insurer he may be entitled to get it from the tortfeasor of the other vehicle, but no such evidence is available in this case.

¶27

It is an admitted fact that the accident was occurred on 06.04.1996. Ext.A1 is the copy of the F.I.R, it was registered by Srikandapuram Police. Ext.A2 is the AMVI report and Ext.A3 is the cash bill. Ext.A4 is the temporary registration certificate. Ext.A6 is the photograph of the damaged vehicle. There is no evidence with regard to assess the damages of the vehicle. In the absence of any specific evidence with regard to assess the damages, it is not possible to award the entire amount claimed under Ext.A3 series cash bills. The

¶28

MACA.No. 2101 of 2005

¶29

¶30

photographs Ext.A6 shows that the front bumper and other portion of the vehicle sustained serious damages. He might have spent huge amount for repairing the vehicle. Appellant produced Ext.A3 series cash bills for Rs.1,25,000/- and another Rs.23,820/- in the lower court. Even then, in the absence of survey report, it is just and reasonable to award Rs.25,000/- towards repair charge of the vehicle. In the circumstance, the dismissal of the claim petition is hereby set aside and considering the repair bill a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded as compensation.

¶31

In the result, appellant is entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with 6% interest from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The insurer is directed to satisfy the award amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which it will carry 12% interest from the date of default.

¶32

This appeal is disposed of, as above.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

P.D.RAJAN JUDGE

¶35

bng/24.10.18

Musthafa Ramazan v. Puthanpurakkal Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musthafa Ramazan v. Puthanpurakkal Joseph

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

Sundaran Vs Pratheesh

Rajasree Vs a.K.Riyas

K.Vijayakumar Vs a.K.Riyas

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohammed Rafeek

Ramachandran Vs Abdulla

Jose Vs the Registrar, Kerala Agriculture