Allowed

Suresh v. Sanjok Sharma

Kerala HC8 Aug 2022MACA/1813/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed the appeal against the MACA and set aside the insurance company's right of recovery against the drivers and owners. The court held that since the vehicle had a valid permit during the accident date, the basis for denying indemnity and claiming recovery from the drivers failed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed. The award in OP(MV) No.915/2015 granting right of recovery to the Insurance Company is set aside. The Insurance Company shall satisfy the award amount.

Suresh Vs Sanjok Sharma — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 1813 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 915/2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PALA

¶7

APPELLANTS/1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 SURESH, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O RAMU, CHIRAKULAM HOUSE, KAIPPAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK, CHELIANGGADU KARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶9

2 K.R.SYLESH KUMAR, NO 82, K.P.P.COMPLEX, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIVALA, BANGLORE, KARNATAKA, PIN-560 008.

¶10

BY ADV RAJESH CHAKYAT

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 SANJOK SHARMA

¶13

S/O PADMA SHARMA, SAAT DOBATAY RANGDHUDKATY, TEA GARDEN, MRK, DARJEELEENG 734 214, NOW RESIDING AT MAVELI BAKERS PALA P.O.PIN-686 575.

¶14

2 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD, KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE P.O., PIN-686 002.

¶15

BY ADV MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M. A. C. A. No.1813 of 2020 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8^th day of August, 2022

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This appeal is by respondents 1 and 2 in the OP(MV)

¶21

before the Tribunal. They were the driver and owner respectively, of the offending vehicle involved in an accident. The appeal is confined to the right of recovery granted to the insurance company, against the appellants.

¶22

The accident which led to the filing of the OP(MV) occurred on 11.04.2015. The first respondent herein is the claimant. The Tribunal awarded

¶23

compensation of ` 10,41,834/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition (12.10.2015) till date of realisation, and proportionate costs. It was specified that from out of the award amount an amount of

¶24

` 60,000/- awarded towards future prospects will not

¶25

M. A. C. A. No.1813 of 2020

¶26

-: 2 :-

¶27

carry interest. The Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the claim and was further permitted to recover the compensation amount from the appellants. The reason for grant of right of recovery in favour of the Insurance Company was that, the vehicle in question was not covered by a valid permit at the time of the accident viz. 11.04.2015.

¶28

Notice issued to the first respondent-claimant was returned as, “addressee left Kerala”. Since the

¶29

quantum of the award is not under challenge in this appeal, the request of the appellants as per IA 1/2021 to delete the first respondent has been granted.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the

¶31

learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶32

Along with the appeal, the appellants have filed

¶33

IA 3/2020 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure producing therewith certified copy of the

¶34

M. A. C. A. No.1813 of 2020

¶35

-: 3 :-

¶36

Permit relating to the offending vehicle. The permit apparently is for the period from 03.07.2012 to 02.07.2017. The appellants were exparte before the

¶37

Tribunal. They contend that they were not served with notice in the O.P(MV). On the facts of this case I do not consider it necessary to go into the said dispute. The permit covers the period of the accident, and it is a material document for proper disposal of the appeal.

¶38

Hence the said document is accepted in evidence. The same is marked as Ext.A14.

¶39

The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance

¶40

Company was granted time to ascertain about the genuineness of Ext.A14 permit. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that Ext.A14 could be accepted and the appeal be disposed of in the light thereof.

¶41

M. A. C. A. No.1813 of 2020

¶42

-: 4 :-

¶43

As noticed above, the accident in question was on 11.04.2015. Ext.A14 permit was valid during the said date. Therefore, the right of recovery granted to the Insurance Company cannot be sustained.

¶44

Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The award dated 01.07.2019 in OP(MV) No.915/2015 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, in so far as it grants right of recovery to the Insurance Company, is set aside. The Insurance Company shall satisfy the award amount in terms of the award, if not already satisfied.

¶45

Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy//

P.S. to Judge

APPENDIX OF MACA 1813/2020

¶50

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶51

ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PERMIT OF BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO KA01AB4601 PERMIT NO STA1B/TVP/BUS/140/2012-13

Suresh v. Sanjok Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh v. Sanjok Sharma

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

Sabu Augustine Vs Sajeevan C.K

Hazeena Begum, Vs the District Police Chief

Cherian K.T Vs Vishnu Raj IAS

M/S.Coastal Engineering, Vs the Union of India

Badarudeen Vs Thankamma Mathunni

Francis Kottackal Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs the United India Insurance Company Limited