Remanded

Prasanna Das v. K.P.Abdul Razak

Kerala HC13 Sept 2021MACA/197/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Motor Accident Claims Appeal regarding compensation for injuries, the High Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal. A dispute arose concerning the paternity of additional appellants claiming to be children of the deceased original appellant. The Court held it cannot decide paternity in a civil appeal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to determine legal representation and, if necessary

What did the court decide?

The claim petition Op(MV) No.516 of 1999 is remanded to the Tribunal to decide the question of whether the additional appellants are legal representatives of the deceased; parties appear on 25.10.2021

Prasanna Das Vs K.P.Abdul Razak — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 197 OF 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 516/1999 OF IST

¶7

ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

¶8

APPELLANT/S:

¶9

1 PRASANNA DAS, S/O.GOVINDAN AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT SREEPADAM,, WEST HILL P.O., ATHANIKKAL BEACH, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

(DIED), ADDL.APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 IMPLEADED

¶11

2 PAVAN B, AGED 21 YEARS S/O B PRASANNA DAS GREENLAND, PALAPARAMBIL, MADHYAMAM, VELLIMADUKUNNU KOZHIKODE-673012

¶12

3 PAVANA B, AGED 21 YEARS D/O B PRASANNA DAS GREENLAND, PALAPARAMBIL, MADHYAMAM, VELLIMADUKUNNU KOZHIKODE-673012 (ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14.10.19 IN IA 3/19 IN MACA 197/07)

¶13

THE AMENDMENT MADE IN THE CAUSE TILTLE VIDE ORDER DATED 14/10/19 IS STRUCK OFF AS PER ORDER DATED 21/01/2020 IN IA 1/19, CM APPLN 2/19, IA 3/19, IA 4/19 AND CM APPLN 196/07 IN MACA 197/07

¶14

4 P2- PAVAN .B AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. B. PRASANNA DAS, " GREEN LAND" PALAPARAMBIL MADHYAMMA VELLIMADUKUNNU, KOZHIKODE - 673 012.

¶15

-2-

¶16

MACA. No.197 of 2007

¶17

5 P3- PAVANA B, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O. B. PRASANNA DAS " GREEN LAND" PALAPARAMBIL MADHYAMAM VELLMADUKUNNU KOZHIKODE - 673 012.

¶18

ADDL. APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 IMPLEADED.

¶19

BY ADVS.

¶20

SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN (SR.) SRI.JOSE JONES JOSEPH

¶21

RESPONDENT/S:

¶22

1 K.P.ABDUL RAZAK RESIDING AT MANAL HOUSE, PAPPINISSERY AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.AROLI, KANNUR.

¶23

2 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, WHITE LINES BUILDING,, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE.

¶24

3 T.JAYAPALAN SO. UNNI RESIDING AT THODIYIL HOUSE, P.O.VELLAYIL BEACH,, KOZHIKODE.

¶25

4 JAYASREE, AGED 56 YEARS W/O B PRASANNA DAS SREEPADAM, ATHANIKKAL BRANCH ROAD, WEST HILL P O, KOZHIKODE-673005

¶26

5 PRAJULA, AGED 35 YEARS D/O B PRASANNA DAS SREEPADAM, ATHANIKKAL BRANCH ROAD, WEST HILL P O, KOZHIKODE-673005

¶27

-3-

¶28

MACA. No.197 of 2007

¶29

6 PRAJESH, AGED 33 YEARS S/O B PRASANNA DAS, SREEPADAM, ATHANIKKAL BRANCH ROAD, WEST HILL P O, KOZHIKODE-673005

¶30

(ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14.10.19 IN IA 3/19 IN MACA 197/07)

¶31

THE AMENDMENT MADE IN THE CAUSE TILTLE VIDE ORDER DATED 14/10/19 IS STRUCK OFF AS PER ORDER DATED 21/01/2020 IN IA 1/19, CM APPLN 2/19, IA 3/19, IA 4/19 AND CM APPLN 196/07 IN MACA 197/07

¶32

7 R4 – JAYASREE, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. B. PRASANN DAS, " SREEPADAM" ATHANIKKAL BRANCH ROAD, WEST HILL P.O, KOZHIKODE - 673 005.

¶33

8 R5- PRAJULA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O. B. PRASANNA DAS, " SREEPADAM" , ATHANIKKAL BRANCH ROAD, WEST HILL P.O, KOZHIKODE - 673 005.

¶34

9 R6- PRAJESH, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. B. PRASANNA DAS, " SREEPADAM", ATHANIKKAL BRANCH ROAD, WESL HILL P.O, KOZHIKODE - 673 005.

¶35

THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 AND 3, AND THE ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 HAVE BEEN IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 9/9/21 IN I.A. NO. 6/2020 IN MACA 197/2007.

¶36

BY ADVS.

¶37

SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,UNITED INDIA INSU E.G.GORDEN S.K.KRISHNAKUMAR V.M.MARY HARSHA

¶38

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

-4-

MACA. No.197 of 2007

JUDGMENT

The original appellant – Prasanna Das – had filed OP(MV) No.516 of 1999 before the 1^st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, seeking compensation on account of the injuries that he sustained in an accident on 11.10.1998. The original respondents 1 to 3 were the respondents before the Tribunal. On the death of the original appellant, the additional appellants 2 and 3 and additional respondents 4 to 6 were impleaded in the appeal. Therefore, the parties are, wherever the context so requires and for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

¶43

The petitioner had filed the claim petition

¶44

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, stating that, on 11.10.1998, while he was riding a

¶45

-5-

¶46

MACA. No.197 of 2007

¶47

motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-11A/5586 on the Karapparamba-East Hill Road and when he reached the CDA Colony, a car bearing registration No.KL-13D/4458 (car), driven and owned by the 1^st respondent in a negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle. The petitioner sustained serious injuries and was treated at the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. The petitioner was a contractor by profession. The car was insured with the 2^nd respondent. The respondents 3 and 4 were the owner and insurer of the motorcycle.

¶48

The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition by permitting the petitioner to realise an amount of Rs.1,60,965/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment and a cost of Rs.2,000/- from the 2^nd respondent/

-6-

MACA. No.197 of 2007

insurer of the car.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of

¶53

compensation, the petitioner has filed the appeal.

¶54

Pending the appeal, the petitioner/original appellant passed away on 26.02.2018.

¶55

After the death of the original appellant, the additional appellants 2 and 3 filed I.A No.6 of 2020 claiming to be the illegitimate children of the deceased appellant, to get themselves impleaded as the additional appellants 2 and 3 and the wife and legitimate children of the deceased to be impleaded as the additional respondents 4 to 6 in the appeal.

¶56

This Court by order dated 09.09.2021, allowed the above application and impleaded the additional appellants 2 and 3 and additional respondents 4 to 6 in the appeal.

¶57

-7-

¶58

MACA. No.197 of 2007

¶59

Heard; Sri.Jose Johns, the learned counsel appearing for the additional appellants 2 and 3, Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and Sri.E.G.Gorden, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6.

¶60

Today when the appeal was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for additional appellants 2 and 3 attempted to rely on certain documents produced along with I.A No.1 of 2020, namely the death certificate of the appellant, birth certificate of the additional appellants 2 and 3 and a Will dated 05.09.2011 executed by the original appellant, bequeathing his properties in favour of the additional appellants 2 and 3 and their mother.

¶61

The genuineness and authenticity of the said documents was vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing for additional respondents

¶62

-8-

¶63

MACA. No.197 of 2007

¶64

4 to 6, on the ground that the documents are fabricated and, therefore, they cannot be accepted in evidence without giving the additional respondents 4 to 6 an opportunity to disprove the genuineness of the documents. The learned counsel also contended that the claim put forth by the additional appellants 2 and 3 that they are children born in a relationship between the original appellant and the mother of the additional appellants 2 and 3 is false and disputed. The additional appellants are not the legal representatives of the deceased and under no circumstances can the compensation amount be paid to them. The additional respondents 4 to 6 are prepared to substantiate that the additional appellants 2 and 3 are not children born in a relationship between the original appellant and the mother of the appellants 2 and 3.

¶65

-9-

¶66

MACA. No.197 of 2007

¶67

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the rival contentions urged before this Court, where the paternity of the additional appellants itself is disputed and that they are not the legal representatives of the deceased appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the above vexed question cannot be decided in the appeal. Therefore, I hold that the matter has to be remitted back to the Tribunal, to consider and decide whether the additional appellants 2 and 3 are the legal representatives of the deceased appellant, after giving both sides an opportunity of proving their respective contentions. If necessary, the Tribunal may relegate the parties to a competent Civil Court to decide on the question of the paternity of the additional appellants.

¶68

In the result, without interfering with impugned

¶69

-10-

¶70

MACA. No.197 of 2007

¶71

award now, because unless the question who are all the legal representatives of the deceased original appellant is first decided, this Court will not be in a position to decide who are all entitled to prosecute the appeal. Hence, I remand O.P(MV) No.516 of 1999 to the Tribunal for the observed purpose. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 25.10.2021, either in person or through counsel. The Tribunal shall, keeping in mind the fact that the claim petition is of the year 1999, make every endevour to decide the question as to whether the additional appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased, as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law. It is made clear that if amount any is deposited by the 2^nd respondent insurer, the same shall not be disbursed to any person until a final decision is taken in the above question. After the decision is taken, the legal representatives of the

¶72

-11-

¶73

MACA. No.197 of 2007

¶74

deceased would be at liberty to move this Court again, seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded by the impugned award, if so advised. It is also made clear that until a final decision is taken in the above dispute, the the 2^nd respondent insurer will not be liable to pay any interest on the compensation amount from today till a fimal decision is taken on the above question. The parties shall bear their respective costs. All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed, without prejudice to the right of the parties to get back the original documents from this Court in accordance with law. The Registry shall forthwith transmit the LCR to the Tribunal.

¶75

Sd/-

¶76

C.S.DIAS JUDGE

¶77

das

Prasanna Das v. K.P.Abdul Razak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanna Das v. K.P.Abdul Razak

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

Raseena K., Vs a. Shajahan IAS

Vijayalakshmi and Others Vs Ashraf and Others

R.Usha Kumari Vs the M.D.,Tamilnadu State Transport,Corpn

Lipika & Others Vs Joseph & Others

Vadakkan Thari Ayishumma Vs Shahul Hameed T.

Managing Director Vs Murugan