Allowed

Sundaran v. Pratheesh

Kerala HC22 Oct 2018MACA/670/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court on a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal set aside the Tribunal's direction to reimburse the claimant from the vehicle owner and directed the insurer to satisfy the awarded compensation of Rs.2,06,000, noting the vehicle had a valid fitness certificate.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the direction to reimburse from the vehicle owner; directed the insurer to satisfy the award of Rs.2,06,000.

Sundaran Vs Pratheesh — 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

MONDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 30TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 670 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 591/2011 of M.A.C.T OTTAPPALAM DATED 1912-2014

¶7

APPELLANT/2nd RESPONDENT:

¶8

SUNDARAN, S/O.KUNHI KRISHNAN, AGED 44 YEARS

¶9

KALLAT HOUSE, PALAPPETTY P.O., PONNANI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT 1 & 3:

¶12

1 PRATHEESH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. PARAMESWARAN (LATE), VARIYATHU PUNCHAYIL HOUSE, P.O.KOOTTANAD-679534, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶13

2 SAJITH LAL, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.BALAN, KODAKKALLINGAL HOUSE, KADAVANAD P.O.-679586, PONNANI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT(DRIVER OF KL8V-7979 ASHOK LEYLAND 2002 MODEL BUS)

¶14

3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, AMBADI BUILDING, C.V.JUNCTION,PONNANI679577(INSURER OF KL-8-V-7979 ASHOK LEYLAND 2002 MODEL BUS; POLICY NO.1019013110 P 001340591 VALID FROM 11-11-2010 - 10.11.2011)

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.AGINOV MATHAPPAN SMT.K.SHERIN MOHAN

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MACA.No. 670 of 2018

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the award in OP(MV) No.591/2011 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam by the owner of the vehicle. The first respondent in this appeal, preferred the above claim petition for getting compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor accident. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.2,06,000/with 9% interest and proportionate cost as compensation and directed the insurer to satisfy the award and reimburse the amount from the owner of the vehicle. Being aggrieved by that, the owner of the vehicle preferred this appeal.

¶21

In the lower court, the driver and owner did not

¶22

contest the matter and they were set ex-parte. The insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle, but contended that the vehicle KL-8 V-7979 was not holding fitness certificate at the time of accident. The claimant examined PW1 and his documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A11. A copy of policy was marked as Ext.B1.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶24

MACA.No. 670 of 2018

¶25

¶26

appellant contended that the vehicle was holding valid fitness certificate at the time of accident and he could not produce the certificate in time. Therefore, the direction to reimburse the award amount from the owner of the vehicle is unsustainable in law. In this appeal, insurer admitted that the vehicle was used with valid fitness certificate from 08.11.2010 to 07.11.2011, which is clear from Annexure A1. The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport Office, Palakkad certified in Annxure A1 that the vehicle KL-8 V-7979 was holding valid fitness certificate on the date of accident, i.e, 08.11.2010 to 07.11.2011. In the circumstance, the direction issued by the Tribunal to reimburse the amount from the owner of the vehicle is hereby set aside and the insurer is directed to satisfy the award.

¶27

This appeal is disposed of, as above.

¶28

Sd/- P.D.RAJAN JUDGE

¶29

bng/23.10.18

Sundaran v. Pratheesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundaran v. Pratheesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Vijayakumar Vs Natarajan

Sreenivasan Vs Midhun

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Lalitha K.G.

Rajasree Vs a.K.Riyas

K.Vijayakumar Vs a.K.Riyas

K.Vijayakumar Vs a.K.Riyan