Allowed

Jaijo John @ Jaimon v. Shamnaz

Kerala HC2 Sept 2021MACA/445/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Motor Accident Claims Appeals (Nos. 453 & 445 of 2017). The Court set aside the Tribunal's dismissal which attributed sole negligence to the deceased two-wheeler rider. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration on negligence and apportionment within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration on negligence and apportionment; disposal expedited within two months.

Jaijo John @ Jaimon Vs Shamnaz — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 11TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 453 OF 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 213/2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM

¶7

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 THANKAPPAN AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, KEERIKUZHY HOUSE,MATTAKUZHI, VARIKOLI P.O, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 308.

¶9

2 SUBHADRA AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. THANKAPPAN, KEERIKUZHY HOUSE,MATTAKUZHI, VARIKOLI P.O, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 308.

¶10

3 SUDHA AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. ASHOKAN AND D/O. THANKAPPAN,KEERIKUZHY HOUSE,MATTAKUZHI, VARIKOLI P.O, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 308.

¶11

4 GEETHA AGED 38 YEARS W/O. MANOJ AND D/O. THANKAPPAN,KEERIKUZHY HOUSE,MATTAKUZHI, VARIKOLI P.O, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 308.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.BIJIMON C.CHERIAN SMT.P.P.STELLA

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 SHAMNAZ

¶15

AGED 26 YEARS S/O. MEERAN, MUKULUMPURATH HOUSE,PALLICHIRANGARA BHAGOM, PEZHAKAPPILLY,MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 316.(DRIVER).

¶16

MACA Nos.453/2017& 445/2017

¶17

¶18

2 THOMAS AGED 75 YEARS, PALAPPURAM HOUSE, KADATHY KARA,VALAKUZHY ROAD, MUDAVOOR P.O, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE,MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT .PIN - 686 669(OWNER)

¶19

3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD T.H TOWER, FIRST FLOOR, STADIUM ROAD,MARKET P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686673,(POLICY NO. 441700/31/2013/20429, VALID UP TO 23-01-2014)(INSURER).

¶20

4 RAMESAN AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. THANKAPPAN, KEERIKUZHY HOUSE, PALAKKAMATTOM KARA, KINGINIMATTOM P.O, KOLENCHERY, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682311.

¶21

BY ADV SRI.A.R.GEORGE

¶22

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.445/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

MACA Nos.453/2017& 445/2017

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶28

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 11TH BHADRA, 1943 MACA NO. 445 OF 2017

¶29

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 188/2014 OF MOTOR

¶30

ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM

¶31

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶32

JAIJO JOHN @ JAIMON AGED 31 YEARS,

¶33

S/O.K.V.YOHANAN, KONATHU HOUSE, MATTAKKUZHI KARA, VARIKOLI P.O., THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN682308.

¶34

BY ADVS. SRI.BIJIMON C.CHERIAN SMT.P.P.STELLA

¶35

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶36

1 SHAMNAZ

¶37

AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MEERAN, MUKULUMPURATH HOUSE, PALLICHIRANGARA BHAGOM, PEZHAKAPPILLY, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682316 (DRIVER).

¶38

2 THOMAS

¶39

AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, PALAPPURAM HOUSE, KADATHY KARA, VALAKUZHY ROAD, MUDAVOOR P.O., VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686669 (OWNER)

¶40

MACA Nos.453/2017& 445/2017

¶41

¶42

3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. T.H.TOWER, FIRST FLOOR, STADIUM ROAD, MARKET P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686673 (POLICY NO.441700/31/2013/20429, VALID UP TO 23-01-2014)(INSURER)

¶43

BY ADV SRI.A.R.GEORGE

¶44

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.453/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶45

¶46

MACA Nos.453/2017& 445/2017

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

MACA No. 453 of 2017 is by the legal heirs of rider of a two wheeler, who met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries. MACA.No.445 of 2017 is by the pillion rider. Their respective claim applications were dismissed by the Tribunal by entering into the finding that the accident was happened due to the sole negligence of the rider of the two wheeler. The accident happened due to the collision between the two vehicles, a two wheeler and a Lorry, in which the first respondent is the Lorry driver and second respondent is the owner of the Lorry.

¶49

The police after investigation submitted the final report as against the Lorry driver, which was produced and marked as Ext.A4. The pillion rider gave oral

¶50

MACA Nos.453/2017& 445/2017

¶51

¶52

evidence in tune with their claim alleging that accident was happened due to the sole negligence on the part of the first respondent, the Lorry driver. Overlooking all these evidences, i.e. the final report and the oral evidence tendered by the pillion rider, the Tribunal entered into a finding that the accident was happened due to the sole negligence on the part of the deceased victim, who was the rider of two wheeler. In fact no contra evidence was adduced. That was also overlooked by the Tribunal. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal by dismissing both the claim petitions cannot be sustained, hence set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration with respect to the negligence and the manner in which accident was happened and the apportionment thereof, for which, both the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on

¶53

MACA Nos.453/2017& 445/2017

¶54

23.09.2021. There will be a further direction to the Tribunal to expedite the disposal positively within a time schedule of two months from the date of appearance of the parties.

¶55

MACAs are allowed in part accordingly.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

¶58

SPV

Jaijo John @ Jaimon v. Shamnaz

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaijo John @ Jaimon v. Shamnaz

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

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs Nidhimon Mathew

Kannadasan Vs Vallyamma

M.K.Raghavan Vs Moodan Kuthirummal Karthiyani (Deaf and Dump)

R.Mohanan Nair Vs Sudhakaran Pillai

Ravindranathan Nair Vs M.a.Thomas

Thankappan Vs Shamnaz