Remanded

K.Mammotty v. Varghese

Kerala HC18 Feb 2022MACA/1634/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal which dismissed the claim due to lack of evidence. The Court remanded the case to the Tribunal to grant an opportunity to adduce further evidence and dispose of the matter within three months, citing the need to protect victims from technicalities.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award is set aside; case remanded to MACT, Wayanad to allow adduction of evidence and dispose within three months.

K.Mammotty Vs Varghese — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 29TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 1634 OF 2009

¶6

(AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(MV) NO.526/2003 DATED 29.11.2008 ON THE FILED OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,WAYANAD,

¶7

KALPETTA)

¶8

APPELLANT (PETITIONER):

¶9

K.MAMMOTTY, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.ABDULLA, KUNINGARATH, P.O.VELLAMUNDA, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.N.J.ANTONY

¶10

RESPONDENTS(RESPONDENTS):

¶11

1 VARGHESE, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O SCARIA, THATTALADIYIL, THOMATTUCHAL, AMBALAVAYAL (VIA)., (DRIVER OF MINI LORRY NO.KL-12 B/5946.D.L.NO.NOT KNOWN).

¶12

2 ANDRU AGED 36 YEARS SO.AMMAD KUTHINI HOUSE, KAVUMANNAM., (OWNER OF MINI LORRY NO.KL-12 B/5946).

¶13

3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.KALPETTA. (POLICY NO.760604/31/03/02875 FROM 29/08/2003 TO, 28/08/04).

¶14

BY ADV SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY

¶15

SMT T.C SOUMYAVATHY-R3

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MACA.No.1634 of 2009

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed against the award passed in O.P.(MV) No.526/2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, dismissing the claim petition. The claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act) claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor accident occurred on 4.11.2003 at about 5.30. p.m., while the appellant/claimant was riding motorcycle bearing registration KL-12-B/6202 from Kalpetta to Vellamunda and reached at Chennalode, a Mini Lorry bearing registration No.KL-12B/5946, driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle ridden by the appellant resulting in serious injuries to him.

¶21

It is alleged that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of 1^st respondent. The Mini Lorry is owned by the 2^nd respondent and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the vehicle. Total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- has been claimed by the appellant.

¶22

MACA.No.1634 of 2009

¶23

¶24

Before the Tribunal 1^st and 2^nd respondent filed joint written statement denying rashness and negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent. It is contented that the accident happened due to the negligence of appellant/claimant. The claims under various heads are also denied.

¶25

The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy coverage with respect to the offending vehicle. The claims under various heads are also denied.

¶26

There was no oral evidence adduced from either side. Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked from the side of the appellant/claimant. Tribunal after evaluating the documents and claim petition dismissed the petition on the ground that no supporting documents have been produced to prove that the claimant sustained injury out of the accident and there is no evidence to fix the liability upon the 1^st respondent. Against which the appellant/claimant approaches this Court in appeal.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent/insurer Adv.Soumyavathy.

¶28

The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is to grant him an opportunity to prove the case.

¶29

¶30

MACA.No.1634 of 2009

¶31

Appellant had filed I.A. No.2229/2008 for reopening the evidence, but that was dismissed by the Tribunal. On going through the records it is seen that I.A. No.2229/2008 has been filed by the appellant/claimant after posting the case for judgment. However, it has been specifically averred in the supporting affidavit that he could not produce the wound certificate since it was not received in time from the Hospital. It is also alleged that he has got evidence in the matter and hence the evidence has to be reopened. Without stating any reason whatsoever, the Tribunal dismissed the petition by a non-speaking order.

¶32

Exhibit A1 is the FIR and Exhibit A4 is the charge sheet. Exhibit A1 FIR clearly shows that the statement of the claimant was taken for registering the crime. Charge sheet was also filed against the 1^st respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle. Those would establish that the claimant in this case sustained injury out of the accident occurred on 04-11-2003 as alleged in the claim petition.

¶33

In the said circumstances, when a petition is filed by the claimant to reopen the evidence to substantiate the allegations, there is no justifications in simply dismissing the same even without any reason and thereafter dismissing the claim petition itself on the ground that claimant could not prove that he had sustained injuries

MACA.No.1634 of 2009

out of accident.

Claims Tribunal have been constituted for safeguarding the interest of victims or survivers of deceased persons out of motor accident. Every actions by such statutory bodies should enure to the benefit of the needy inspite of foreclosing their right by finding one reason or other. In N.K.V.Brothers (P) Ltd.

¶38

V.M.Karunamayi Ammal and others : AIR 1980 SC 1354, the

¶39

Apex Court while dealing with Section 110-B and 110-C of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 held that Accident Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability only because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. It is also held that court should not succumb to niceties technicalities and maybes.

¶40

In this case, if at all the Tribunal had allowed I.A.No.2229/2008 filed by the claimant to receive the additional documents the claimant need not have approached this Court. Hence, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 10.03.2022. (It is open for both parties to adduce further evidence.) Thereafter, the Tribunal shall dispose the matter within 3

¶41

MACA.No.1634 of 2009

¶42

¶43

months from 10.03.2022.

¶44

In the result, the impugned award is set aside and the case is

¶45

remanded to MACT, Wayanad.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

M.R.ANITHA JUDGE

¶48

SMF

K.Mammotty v. Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Mammotty v. Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lazar Vs Vinto

Viswanathan Vs Shanthi

Kumari Vs Vittal

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Graceamma Francis and Others

Shibu Khan Vs Anulal

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Leelamma