Allowed

Suresh @ Suran v. Tomy N.J.

Kerala HC6 Sept 2021MACA/1997/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's order permitting recovery of compensation from the appellant motorcyclist. The High Court set aside recovery from the appellant and remanded the case to allow him to prove valid driving license.

What did the court decide?

The award permitting recovery from the appellant is set aside. The case is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after the appellant adduces evidence regarding the validity of his driving l

Suresh @ Suran Vs Tomy N.J. — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 15TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 1997 OF 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.11.2011 IN OP(MV) NO. 1293/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶7

APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶8

SURESH @ SURAN S/O.KUNJIKUTTAN, KONNACKAL HOUSE, PALAKKATTUMALA P.O., ANDOOR KARA, ELAKKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 635.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3:

¶11

1 TOMY N.J., S/O.BABU, NATTUTHARAPPIL HOUSE, PALAKKATTUMALA P.O., ANDOOR KARA, ELAKKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 635.

¶12

2 M.K.RAMACANDRAN THANNICKAL HOUSE, PALAKKATTUMALA P.O., PALAKKATTUMALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 635. 3 THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.1, 3RD FLOOR, MATTETHARA BUILDINGS, BAKER JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 001. BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.VPK.PANICKER SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM NILACKAPPILLIL SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN THIRUVALLA

¶13

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.08.2021, THE COURT ON 06.09.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

M.A.C.A.No.1997 of 2013

¶15

:-2-:

¶16

T.R.RAVI, J.

¶17

M.A.C.A.No.1997 of 2013

¶18

Dated this the 6^th day of September, 2021

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The 1^st respondent in OP(MV)No.1293 of 2007 before the

¶21

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala has filed his appeal. On 17.9.2006 at about 5.30 p.m. a motorcycle belonging to the 2^nd respondent and driven by the appellant overturned. The 1^st respondent was riding pillion on the motorcycle and he sustained serious injuries. He was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam for treatment. In the claim preferred by him before the Tribunal, he was awarded a sum of Rs.74,100/- with 7.5% interest from the date of the petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.3,000/-. The 3^rd respondent was directed to pay the amount in the first instance and permission was granted to recover the amount from the appellant and the 2^nd respondent herein. Aggrieved by the permission granted to recover the amounts from the appellant, he has filed this appeal.

¶22

M.A.C.A.No.1997 of 2013 :-3-:

¶23

The Tribunal relied on Exhibit A5 Charge sheet which shows that the appellant was driving the vehicle, that he was made accused in Crime No.61/2006 and that there was no contra evidence regarding the above aspect. The contention of the 3^rd respondent was that the appellant while driving the vehicle was not having a valid driving license. It was for this reason that the Tribunal has allowed recovery from the appellant. It can be seen from the proceedings that a Driving Licence was marked as Ext.B1 but the said document is not seen in the file and it has not been forwarded along with the Lower Court records. RW1 who is an official of the Motor Vehicles Department was examined and questions were put to him regarding the licence that was shown to him. He has not however stated in clear terms that the appellant did not have a valid licence. Before this Court, the appellant has filed I.A.No.1 of 2021, producing therewith the original of License No.KP/329/89 dated 18.8.1989, which was valid till 14.3.1994. The licence is seen to have been renewed on several occasions and finally upto 14.3.2006. It would appear that

¶24

M.A.C.A.No.1997 of 2013 :-4-:

¶25

the license was later cancelled. The appellant has also produced the original of another driving license, which has been issued on 7.3.2020 which refers to the earlier driving license No.35/329/1989 and shows that the license is valid from 17.3.2020 to 16.3.2025 for non-transport and transport vehicles and that he had been issued with license for a motorcycle with gear on 17.2.2019. Since the Tribunal has directed recovery from the appellant mainly for the reason that he did not have a valid license at the time of the accident, I am of the view that the documents which have been produced before this Court has to be produced before the Tribunal and proved in accordance with law, if the same have to be relied upon. Interest of justice will be served if the award to the extent it permits the insurance company to recover the amounts ordered as compensation from the appellant is set aide and the case is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the issue after permitting the appellant to adduce additional evidence in that regard.

¶26

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award of the

¶27

M.A.C.A.No.1997 of 2013 :-5-:

¶28

Tribunal to the extent it permits the insurance company to recover the amount of compensation from the appellant is set aside. The case is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the issue regarding the entitlement of the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the appellant. The appellant shall be permitted to adduce evidence regarding the existence of a valid license at the time of the accident in accordance with law. The Registry shall return the lower court records to the Tribunal for giving effect to the directions in the judgment. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 05.10.2021 and the Tribunal shall make all endeavour to consider and pass fresh orders as directed within 6 months thereafter. The parties shall bear their respective costs.

¶29

All pending interlocutory applications are closed.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI,

JUDGE

dsn

M.A.C.A.No.1997 of 2013 :-6-:

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶37

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA FOR RS.25,000/-.

Suresh @ Suran v. Tomy N.J.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh @ Suran v. Tomy N.J.

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

Prabhakaran Vs Ibrahim

Saffe Panel Industry (P) Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

Evershine Petroleum Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

The Vaniampara Rubber Company Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Varghese Vs Noushiji

T.P.Moideen Vs Ramanan