The Court allowed the appeal against the Tribunal's dismissal of a motor accident claim petition. The Tribunal had erred in dismissing the claim solely because the appellant failed to implead the motorcycle owner and insurer. The Court observed this was a case of composite negligence and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
WEDNESDAY,THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 18TH ASWINA, 1940
MACA.No. 421 of 2009
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 900/2001 of PRL. M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE DATED 18-02-2008
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED MANZOOR, S/O. ABDULLAKOYA, 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT YASMINE MANZIL, PO.MERIKUNNU,, VELLIMADUKUNNU, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMED USMAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No. 421 OF 2009
2
JUDGMENT
Dismissal of the claim petition filed by the
appellant, simply observing that he had not chosen to implead the owner and insurer of the motor cycle in which he was travelling as a pillion rider, is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
well as the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent insurance company.
M.A.C.A.No. 421 OF 2009
3
petition seeking for compensation under different heads.
the Tribunal simply dismissed the claim petition, holding that in a case like this, it was obligatory for the appellant/pillion rider of the motor cycle to have impleaded the rider and insurer of the motor cycle as well. No fault liability compensation under Section 140 of the MV.Act alone was awarded by the Tribunal in the said circumstance.
4
M.A.C.A.No. 421 OF 2009
for the second respondent/Insurance Company that the vehicle was not involved in the accident referred to by the claimant. After granting the No Fault Liability Compensation, the Tribunal required the Insurance Company to have it satisfied which is stated as satisfied as well. It is an indicator as to the involvement of the vehicle insured by the second respondent.
the view that summary dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal, holding that it was not maintainable for having not impleaded the owner and insurer of the motor cycle on which the appellant was travelling as a pillion rider, is not correct. It is a clear case of 'composite negligence' and it was always open for the claimant to have proceeded against, either or both of the tort-feasers, by virtue of the settled position of law.
to be re-considered. The award passed by the Tribunal
M.A.C.A.No. 421 OF 2009
5
stands set aside and the same is remanded for fresh consideration. The appellant shall take necessary steps to implead the driver of the 'mini van' bearing No.KL.7B 5269 in the party array. The parties are set at liberty to adduce evidence in support of their stand. So as to facilitate an early disposal, the parties are required to be present before the Tribunal on 12.11.2018 , as suggested by both the sides.
Appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
lk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the summary dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal due to failure to implead the motor cycle owner and insurer was correct.
Whether the claimant could proceed against multiple tort-feasors in a case of composite negligence.
Whether the Tribunal's award should be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
MUHAMMED MANZOOR
S.RAJAN
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
