O.Reshma v. Ratnakaran M.V.
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal dismissed; registered owner held liable for compensation despite alleged prior sale. Recovery from owner upheld as legal despite minor driver license validity issues at the time of accident.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed; recovery from the appellant/second respondent upheld as legal and proper.
What the court decided
M.A.C.A.312/2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944
MACA NO. 312 OF 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 340/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , THALASSERY
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
O.RESHMA, D/O.C.K.KUNHIRAMAN, ONDEN HOUSE, P.O.AZHIKODE, KANNUR-9 (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE).
BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the registered owner of the vehicle is liable for compensation when the vehicle was allegedly sold to a third party prior to the accident.
Whether the driver driving without a valid license at the time of the accident constitutes a violation of policy conditions.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
O.RESHMA
- respondent
RATNAKARAN M.V.
- respondent
P.SAJITH
- respondent
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court