Allowed

C.Balakrishnan v. P.P.Nazar

Kerala HC17 Oct 2018MACA/2706/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Tribunal's award dismissing the appellants' motor accident claim petitions. The court held that due to involvement of two vehicles and disputed joinder of parties, the matter requires fresh consideration by the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The common award of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration with liberty to implead necessary parties and adduce evidence.

C.Balakrishnan Vs P.P.Nazar — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 25TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 2705 of 2008

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 652/2002 of PRL. M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE DATED 22-11-2007

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

RAJINAKUMARI W/O.C.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 38 YEARS,, CHALIL HOUSE, P.O.THURUTHIYAD, VIA BALUSSERY,, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 P.P.NAZAR, S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, POYILIL HOUSE, P.O.ADIVARAM, KOZHIKODE.

¶12

2 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED CHEROOTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE.

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.10.2018, ALONG WITH MACA.2706/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

MACA Nos.2705 & 2706 of 2008

¶16

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶20

WEDNESDAY,THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 25TH ASWINA, 1940

¶21

MACA.No. 2706 of 2008

¶22

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 654/2002 of PRL.M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE DATED 22-11-2007

¶23

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶24

C.BALAKRISHNAN,S/O.VELANDI, CHALIL HOUSE, PO.THURUTHIYAD, VIA.BALUSSERY,, KOZHIKODE.

¶25

BY ADVS. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN

¶26

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶27

1 P.P.NAZAR,S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI POYILIL HOUSE, PO.ADIVARAM, KOZHIKODE.

¶28

2 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. CHEROOTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE.

¶29

R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA

¶30

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.10.2018, ALONG WITH MACA.2705/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

MACA Nos.2705 & 2706 of 2008

¶32

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The injuries sustained by the appellants who were

¶35

standing on the side of the road, because of collision between two different jeeps, were sought to be compensated by filing the claim petitions before the Tribunal. The said cases came to be dismissed by the Tribunal, holding that the claimants had impleaded only

¶36

the parties of one of the two jeeps involved..

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants

¶38

and the learned counsel for the insurance Company.

¶39

There is no dispute with regard to the date of

¶40

the accident, occurred on 30.12.2001 with the involvement of two jeeps as aforesaid. The policy issued in respect of the jeeps was admitted from the part of the respondent Insurance Company. The main contention is with regard to negligence, quantum of compensation and also the non-joinder of parties of the other jeep involved in the accident.

¶41

The evidence adduced before the Tribunal

¶42

consists of Exts.A1 to A5 in O.P(MV)No.652 of 2002 in

¶43

M.A.C.A. No.2705 of 2008 and Exts.A1 to A3 in

¶44

MACA Nos.2705 & 2706 of 2008

¶45

¶46

O.P(MV)No.654 of 2002 in M.A.C.A.No. 2706 of 2008 besides copy of the medical report produced as Ext.C1 (marked as court exhibit). Though it has been shown in the Appendix of the award that nobody was examined from either side, it is pointed out that the claimant in O.P.(MV) 652 of 2002 was examined as P.W.1, as

¶47

discussed by the Tribunal itself in the award.

¶48

The learned counsel for the appellants submits

¶49

that the police had conducted an investigation, after which, the driver of the jeep insured by the respondent herein alone was found as negligent and charge sheet in terms of Sec. 173(2) of the Cr.PC. was laid before the Magistrate's Court concerned. Ext.A1 produced before the Tribunal is only the FIR; whereas copy of the charge sheet has now been produced, submits the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company. It is also stated that the 'vehicle part' which hit on the claimant in O.P.(MV)652 of 2002, which caused serious injuries, including loss of one eye and implantation of a plastic eye to lead the rest of the life, was from the jeep bearing No.KL.10D/1594 and as such, the owner, driver and insurer of the said jeep are also necessary

¶50

MACA Nos.2705 & 2706 of 2008

¶51

¶52

parties, according to the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer.

¶53

The learned counsel for the appellants points out that, as far as the appellants are concerned, they were pedestrians, who were waiting for bus on the side of the road. Hence it is a case of 'composite negligence', by virtue of which, it was quite open for them to have preferred the claim petition against the parties of either of the two vehicles, or both.

¶54

The learned counsel for the appellants placed a copy of the charge sheet filed by the police, fixing negligence on the driver of the jeep insured by the second respondent. But the said document was not produced before the Tribunal. By virtue of the course pursued by the Tribunal, there was no fixation of quantum of compensation payable as well.

¶55

After hearing both the sides and taking note of the submission made across the Bar, this Court is of the view that since the involvement of the two vehicles is not disputed; the factum of sustaining of injuries

¶56

by the claimants is not rebutted and further since the

¶57

eligibility to get compensation cannot be casually

¶58

MACA Nos.2705 & 2706 of 2008

¶59

¶60

repelled, the matter requires to be re-considered by

¶61

the Tribunal.

¶62

Accordingly, the common award passed by the Tribunal, which is subjected to challenge in these appeals, stands set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration. It is open for the appellants

¶63

to implead all necessary parties in the party array, if so advised and both the parties are at liberty to

¶64

adduce evidence in support of their contentions.

¶65

Taking note of the fact that the accident was on 30.12.2001, the proceedings shall be finalised by the Tribunal as expeditiously as possible. The parties

¶66

shall appear before the Tribunal on 17.12.2018 .

¶67

Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,

JUDGE.

/true copy/

P.S. To Judge.

C.Balakrishnan v. P.P.Nazar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Balakrishnan v. P.P.Nazar

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

Mundasseri Kadeeja Vs Manchappulath Mohammed Shareef

Narasimha B. Vs Narayana Ballal

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs C.Sanal and Others

John Joseph Vs Babu and Others

Dinju Ram K.P. Vs K.K.Balan Nair

Mohammed Basil (Minor) Vs Abdul Saleem Vylisseri