Remanded

Bindhu v. Prakashan

Kerala HC7 Sept 2021MACA/246/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Kalpetta dismissed a claim by the family of the deceased, who died in a 2003 autorickshaw accident, due to lack of independent evidence proving negligence. The High Court set aside the tribunal's award and remanded the case for fresh consideration, allowing parties adduce postmortem and charge sheet evidence.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's award was set aside and the case remanded for fresh consideration after allowing parties to adduce additional evidence, including the postmortem report and charge sheet.

Bindhu Vs Prakashan — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 16TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 246 OF 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) NO.308/2003 OF MOTOR

¶7

ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA, WAYANAD

¶8

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 BINDHU, D/O.DAMODHARAN NAIR AND W/O.LATE SURESH BABU, AGED 28 YEARS, MULLATHIL HOUSE, ARRATTUTHARA POST, MANADAVADY.

¶10

2 ASWIN BABU, AGED 8 YEARS, S/O.LATE SURESH BABU, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND BINDU, W/O.LATE SURESH BABU, MULLATHIL HOUSE, ARRATTUTHARA POST, MANADAVADY.

¶11

3 AKSHAY BABU, AGED 6 YEARS, S/O.LATE SURESH BABU, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND BINDU, W/O.LATE SURESH BABU, MULLATHIL HOUSE, ARRATTUTHARA POST, MANADAVADY.

¶12

4 BHARATHI.K., W/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, MOTHER OF LATE SURESH BABU, MULLATHIL HOUSE, ARRATTUTHARA POST, MANADAVADY.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SRI.P.C.GOPINATH, SRI.S.NANDAGOPAL

¶14

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 PRAKASHAN, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, MULLATHIL HOUSE, ARRATTUTHARA POST, MANADAVADY, PIN-670 645 (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO.KL 12A/9866)

¶16

2 KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.ANDI NAIR, MULLATHIL HOUSE, ARRATTUTHARA POST, MANADAVADY, PIN-670 645 (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO.KL 12A/9866)

¶17

3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED KALPETTA BRANCH, PIN-673 121 (POLICY NO.101601/31/02/03007)

¶18

BY ADVS. SRI.S.A.ABDUL SALEEM

¶19

SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN, SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKKADU

¶20

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.09.2021, THE COURT ON 07.09.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MACA No.246 2013

:-2-:

T.R.RAVI, J.

M.A.C.A.No.246 of 2013

¶25

Dated this the 7^th day of September, 2021

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta has filed this appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal for the reason that there is no independent evidence apart from the interested testimony of PW1. The Tribunal has also observed that Exts.A1 and A2 are the FIR and driving licence which are not valid to prove the negligence on the side of the respondents.

¶28

Heard Sri M.P.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel on behalf

¶29

of the appellant, Sri S.A.Abdul Salam, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri N.S.Mohammed Usman, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶30

The claimants are the wife, children and the mother of the deceased Suresh Babu who died in a motor vehicle accident

¶31

MACA No.246 2013

¶32

:-3-:

¶33

on 05.01.2003. The deceased was travelling in an autorickshaw owned by the 3^rd respondent which capsized on the side of the road and the passengers including the deceased sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was taken to District Hospital, Mananthavady from where he was referred to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. Suresh Babu succumbed to the injuries on 05.01.2003. A crime was registered as Crime No.6/2003 of the Pulpally Police Station. The only contention that has been taken up by the appellants before this Court is that even though they have the postmortem report showing the cause of death as the accident and the charge sheet to show the negligence of the driver of the vehicle, the same could not be produced before the Tribunal and they may be given an opportunity to produce the same and prove the claim before the Tribunal. The request made by the counsel for the appellant is reasonable.

¶34

In the above circumstances, the award passed by the Tribunal on 24.07.2008 is set aside. The case is remanded back

¶35

to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after allowing the claimants and the respondents to adduce additional evidence. The Registry

¶36

MACA No.246 2013

¶37

:-4-:

¶38

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 06.10.2021 and the Tribunal shall make

¶39

all endeavour to consider and pass fresh orders as directed within six months thereafter.

¶40

The parties shall bear their respective costs.

¶41

The appeal is disposed of as above.

¶42

Sd/- T.R.RAVI JUDGE

¶43

dsn

Bindhu v. Prakashan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindhu v. Prakashan

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

The Vaniampara Rubber Company Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Varghese Vs Noushiji

Suresh @ Suran Vs Tomy N.J.

Binson Babu Vs Abraham John (Deleted)

Beena C.A. (P.P.O.No.F 51226), Vs Biju Prabhakar, IAS

M/S.Wittur Elevator Components India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench