Allowed

The Director General of Police v. Biju

Kerala HC12 Oct 2018MACA/3819/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment set aside the direction to pay compensation against the appellant owner of a police Jeep who failed to produce the insurance policy in the lower court. The High Court ordered the appellant to pay an additional cost of Rs. 5,000 to each claimant for suffering and delay.

What did the court decide?

The apology to pay compensation set aside; appellant ordered to pay Rs. 5,000 additional cost to each claimant; matter remanded to tribunal for impleading insurer.

The Director General of Police Vs Biju — 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

FRIDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 20TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

M.A.C.A.No. 3819 of 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 217/2008 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA DATED 29-09-2016

¶7

APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN O.P (MV)S:

¶8

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE STATE OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY SRI.M.V.ANANDAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN O.P(MV):

¶11

1 BIJU

¶12

AGED 24 YEARS,S/O.CHANDRAN,PUTHANVEETTIL HOUSE,KARUVTTA,ALAPPUZHA-690517.

¶13

2 MUHAMMED RAJA.M S/O.MAKKAR,THAKYAARPARAMBU,ALISSERY WARD,ALAPPUZHA690517.

¶14

3 ADDL R3.DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, ALAPPUZHA.IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 9.3.2018 IN IA NO.854/18 IN MACA 3819/17

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JAMES

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.10.2018, ALONG WITH M.A.C.A.NO.3840/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.A.C.A.Nos. 3819 & 3840 of 2017 2

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶21

FRIDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 20TH ASWINA, 1940

¶22

M.A.C.A.No. 3840 of 2017

¶23

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(M)V 218/2008 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA

¶24

APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN O.P (MV)S:

¶25

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶26

BY SRI.M.V.ANANDAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶27

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN O.P(MV):

¶28

1 SUDHEESH S.

¶29

AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. SIVANANDAN, S.S. BHAVAN, THOTTAPPALLY P.O., PURAKKADU VILLAGE, PURAKKAD PANCHAYATH, WARD NO. 8, ALAPPUZHA - 688 534.

¶30

2 MUHAMMED RAJA. M S/O. MAKKAR, THAKYAARPARAMBU, ALISSERY WARD, ALAPPUZHA - 688 534.

¶31

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.10.2018, ALONG WITH MACA.3819/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

M.A.C.A.Nos. 3819 & 3840 of 2017 3

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

[ MACA 3819/2017 & MACA.3840/2017 ]

¶35

These appeals are preferred against the common award in OP (MV) Nos. 217 and 218 of 2008 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha by the owner of the vehicle. Claimant's case in the lower court is that on 13.3.2007 at 7.20 pm, petitioner in OP (MV) 218/2018 was riding a motor cycle through Alappuzha - Haripad NH road and the petitioner in OP(MV) 217/2018 was the pillion rider. When they reached at Thottappally spillway Bridge, a police Jeep bearing Registration No. KL-01/AD-4885 driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motor cycle and as a result, they sustained serious injuries. Immediately they were taken to the hospital. The learned tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.48,800/- in OP(MV)No.218/08 and Rs.2,11,726/- in OP(MV) No.217/08 and directed the appellant, owner of the vehicle, to satisfy the award. Being aggrieved by that, the Director General of Police preferred these appeals.

¶36

The driver and owner of the vehicle did not file a written statement in the lower court. Both petitions in OP(MV) Nos.217 and 218 of 2008 were tried jointly. Claimants did not adduce any oral evidence,

¶37

M.A.C.A.Nos. 3819 & 3840 of 2017 4

¶38

but their documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A11. Disability certificate was marked as Ext.X1.

¶39

The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant contended that the vehicle was insured with Kerala State Insurance department and he could not produce the insurance policy in the lower court, in the circumstances, owner was directed to pay compensation. Here the appellant produced Annexure A1, copy of the policy which shows that KL-01/AD-4885 was holding the valid insurance policy from 27.3.2006 to 26.3.2007 with the District Insurance Officer, Alappuzha.

¶40

It is true that the owner of the vehicle is liable to disclose the details of the insurance coverage of the vehicle. He neither filed any written statement nor produce the copy of the policy in the lower court and serious latches from the side of the owner.

¶41

In the light of the above facts mentioned, the direction to pay compensation by the appellant is hereby set aside, provided the appellant has to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) each to the claimants as additional cost, for the sufferings faced by the injured and for the delay in producing the policy in this case. The appellant shall deposit the additional cost of Rs.5,000/- each within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which the Tribunal is at liberty to realise the

¶42

M.A.C.A.Nos. 3819 & 3840 of 2017 5

¶43

amount from Director General of Police/ State Police Chief or from his assets.

¶44

In the result, the direction to pay compensation by the driver and owner is set aside. Both parties are directed to appear before tribunal on 21.11.2018 and implead insurer as additional third respondent. On such impleadment, the tribunal shall give opportunity to file written statement if any to the additional third respondent and dispose the matter as per law

¶45

within six months of their appearance.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE.

¶48

ACM/16.10.2018

The Director General of Police v. Biju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director General of Police v. Biju

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

Vishnu Raveendran Vs Sunil

P.Moideen Kutty Vs P.Basheer & Another

K.P.Omana Vs Rajeev

The Director General of Police Vs Sudheesh S.

Aby Vs Mani

Mohammed Haneefa Vs Abdul Salam