This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal deals with the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's dismissal of the claim, holding that since the appellant himself drove the motorcycle causing the self-accident, he is not entitled to compensation.
Appeal dismissed; parties to bear their respective costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
MACA NO. 972 OF 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 22ND POUSHA, 1943
MACA NO. 972 OF 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 1102/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,THRISSUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SIJO @SHIJU, S/O.SIMON, RESIDING AT THALAKKOTTOOR HOUSE P.O., CHOONDAL, THRISSUR TALUK.
BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.A.R.NIMOD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
RESIDING AT CHETTIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALOOR, KORATTY, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR-680308.
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ANUGRAHA BUILDINGS, WADAKKANCHERY ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR-680503.
BY ADV SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 972 OF 2012
2
JUDGMENT
The appellant was the petitioner in O.P(MV) No.1102/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal.
MACA NO. 972 OF 2012
3
the 3rd respondent was the insurer of the motorcycle. Hence the appellant claimed a compensation of
Rs.3,47,500/- from the respondents, which claim was limited to Rs.1,50,000/-.
converted to one under Section 163A of the Act.
MACA NO. 972 OF 2012
4
PW1 and PW2 and Exts.A1 to A7 series were marked in evidence. The 3rd respondent produced and marked Exts.B1 to B4 in evidence.
Sri.M.Rajagopalan, the counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent- insurer.
MACA NO. 972 OF 2012
5
sustainable in law or not?
MACA NO. 972 OF 2012
6
a self accident, he steps into the shoes of the owner and, therefore, he is not entitled to compensation.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Nonetheless, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs.
Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
12.01.2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of the appellant's claim petition is sustainable in law given the finding that the appellant himself rode the motorcycle causing the 'self-accident'.
Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act when an authorised representative (the driver causing the accident) is the rider.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nigamma & Another v. United India Insurance Co.LtdApplied¶7
Nigamma & Another v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd [2009 KHC 5046]
Nigamma & Another v. United India Insurance Co.LtdRelied on¶13
Nigamma (supra)
Nigamma & Another v. United India Insurance Co.LtdRelied on¶14
Nigamma (supra)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SIJO @SHIJU
ANILKUMAR
PRABHAKARAN
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
C.S. Dias
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
