Dismissed

Vincent Solomon v. Vinod

Kerala HC13 Oct 2022MACA/2338/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against an award dismissing a claim petition under Section 163A for the death of Shinoj, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal found the deceased was riding his own motorcycle and caused the accident through sole negligence. The Court dismissed the appeal, rejecting arguments that the FIR was in dispute and refusing remand.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was upheld.

Vincent Solomon Vs Vinod — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 2338 OF 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOPMV 1313/2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

¶7

TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM

¶8

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :-

¶9

1 VINCENT SOLOMON AGED 54 YEARS S/O.N.J.FREDERICK, F/O.DECEASED SHINOJ.

¶10

2JESSI VINCENT
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O.VINCENT SOLOMON, M/O.DECEASED SHINOJ.
3SHIJIN
AGED 23 YEARS
D/O.VINCENT SOLOMON, S/O. DECEASED SHINOJ.
4SOUMYA
AGED 21 YEARS
D/O.VINCENT SOLOMON, S/O. DECEASED SHINOJ.ALL ARE
RESIDING AT NARAKKASSERI HOUSE, CHOLAKKULAM, SHORNUR,
OTTAPALAM TALUK.

¶11

BY ADV SRI.R.SREEHARI

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :-

¶13

1VINOD
S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, MADATHIL HOUSE, THEKKETHARA,
KOTTEKKAD POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 732.
2THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
3RD FLOOR, EAST FORT COMPLEX, FORT MAIDAN,
PALAKKAD - 678 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)
SMT.DEEPA GEORGE
SMT.DEEPA GEORGE

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶15

MACA NO. 2338 OF 2012

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 13^th day of October, 2022

¶19

This appeal is filed challenging an award passed by Motor

¶20

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 20.01.2012 in O.P.(MV) No.1313/2008.

¶21

The petitioners who are the legal heirs of deceased Shinoj

¶22

has filed this appeal challenging the award dismissing the claim petition. The claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V Act’) seeking for a compensation of Rs.5,30,000/- for the death of Shinoj, who was the son of appellants 1 and 2 and brother of appellants 3 and 4 in a motor accident occurred at 10.30 pm on 20.04.2008. The accident was occurred at Mankara and Crime No.165/2008 was registered on it’s basis by the Mankara Police Station.

¶23

The deceased was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL 9 W 513 through Palakkad Shoranur public road and when reached near Mankara – Chavittilthodu, while turning the vehicle, it

¶24

¶25

MACA NO. 2338 OF 2012

¶26

capsized and thereby he sustained injuries. The injuries were fatal and he succumbed to those within a short period. The original petition seeking compensation was preferred in the above context against the owner and insured of the motor cycle.

¶27

The first respondent did not turn up to contest the original petition and therefore declared ex-parte. The second respondent appeared and filed a written statement contending that the alleged motor accident was occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased and therefore, petitioners who are his legal heirs are disentitled to get any compensation. The status of the petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased was also disputed. The deceased was alleged as not holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time of accident. The amount claimed as compensation is also disputed for being exorbitant.

¶28

Evidence was adduced by the parties before the Tribunal and on appreciation of it, the Tribunal found that the petitioners are disentitled to get any sum as compensation under Section 163A of the M.V.Act, for the reason that Mr.Shinoj himself was riding the

¶29

¶30

MACA NO. 2338 OF 2012

¶31

offending motorcycle and the accident was occurred due to his own negligence.

¶32

Shri.R.Sreehari, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that in the F.I.Statement which formed the basis for the registration of the FIR and appended to it, it was stated by the first informant that the offending vehicle was ridden by one Mr.Vinod and the deceased Shinoj was travelling in it as pillion rider. Annexure-A4 is the Final Report laid by the Mankara Police on concluding the investigation in the case and the rider of the motor cycle was chargesheeted for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). The rider chargesheeted was none other than the deceased Shinoj.

¶33

According to the learned counsel in the FIS that formed the basis for registration of Anenxure-A1, the motor cycle which was involved in the accident was allegedly ridden by one Mr.Vinod and the victim was pillion riding on it. According to him an opportunity is

¶34

required to be provided to him to adduce evidence by examining the investigating officer.

¶35

MACA NO. 2338 OF 2012

¶36

5

¶37

According to him, for the purpose the award in question needs to be reversed and the claim petition, remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration with specific direction to permit him to examine the witnesses, in the chargesheet.

¶38

Ext.A1 is only the F.I.R registered on the basis of an FIS lodged by the brother of deceased Shinoj, who had no opportunity to witness the motor accident. He had stated in the FIS that one Mr.Vinod was riding the motor cycle and Mr.Shinoj was pillion riding on it based on some hearsay information obtained from some source. After holding detailed investigation into the information furnished by the first informant that Annexure-A4 was laid, wherein the deceased himself was stated as riding the motor cycle and caused the accident by his rash and negligent riding.

¶39

Smt.Deepa George, the learned counsel for the third respondent has invited the attention of this Court to the pleading of the petitioners in the original petition seeking compensation that the deceased himself was riding the motor cycle at the relevant time of the

¶40

¶41

MACA NO. 2338 OF 2012

¶42

accident. Therefore, the petitioners cannot deviate from their original statement and to submit later on the contrary.

¶43

Moreover, Anenxure-A4 is the Final Report laid by the

¶44

police after concluding the investigation in Crime No.165/2008. The first information statement and Annexure-A1 FIR registered on it’s basis can only be an initiative wherefrom investigation can be commenced and to any stretch of imagination, it can have no evidentiary value. Moreover, the petitioners have not raised a claim that the Tribunal had denied them opportunity to adduce evidence by declining their request to examine the witnesses in the chargehseet filed in the crime registered by the police. Remand is not meant to fill up the lacuna. Apart from the above, examination of witnesses if permitted will not serve any purpose but, only be a futile exercise.

¶45

MACA fails for the reasons and is dismissed.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

MARY JOSEPH SMA JUDGE

Vincent Solomon v. Vinod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vincent Solomon v. Vinod

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

Sarasamma Vs Rajan

Lekshmi R. Nair Vs Sree Nanchalloor Devi Temple

Velayudhan Vs Shareefa A.K

M.K.Binu Vs State of Kerala

Kochurani Thomas Vs Muhammed Ameer

Manoj Vs Sudheer and Others