Partly allowed

Kunjuraman Pillai v. M/S.Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Kerala HC20 May 2022RFA/309/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the regular first appeal on the ground that limiting evidence to the victim's direct testimony was insufficient given police records and witness evidence. The impugned order was set aside, the matter remanded for fresh disposal, and the appellant was exempted from court fees under Section 67 of the Kerala Court Fees Act.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal within three months. The appellant is exempted from court fee.

Kunjuraman Pillai Vs M/S.Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1944 RFA NO. 309 OF 2016

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.08.2015 IN OS 304/2010 OF SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA.

¶6

APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF :

¶7

KUNJURAMAN PILLAI,

¶8

S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 57 YEARS, GOKULAM VEEDU, KAREEPRA VILLAGE, KUZHIMATHIKADU P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP SRI.V.JAYADHAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS :

¶12

1 M/S.BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., DISTRICT OFFICE, NEAR ARCHANA - ARADHANA THEATRE, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (TD)

¶13

2 MOHANACHANDRAN @ MOHANAN PILLAI,

¶14

S/O. SREEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 53 YEARS, LINE MAN/TELEPHONE MECHANIC, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BSNL OFFICE, NEDUMONCAVU, NEDUMONCAVU P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT ASWATHY BHAVAN, MUNNAMMOODU, VAKKANADU WARD, KAREEPRA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADV SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL

¶16

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON

¶17

20.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

RFA No.309 of 2016 2

¶19

P.SOMARAJAN, J.

¶20

------------------------------------------------

¶21

RFA No.309 of 2016

¶22

----------------------------------------------------

¶23

Dated this the 20^th day of May, 2022.

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The victim, who suffered an injury in connection with an alleged incident covered by Ext.A3 F.I.R, Ext.A4 final report, Ext.A5 scene mahazar, Ext.A6 vehicle mahazar and Ext.A7 wound certificate, came up in appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of the application on the sole ground that he has not given direct evidence by mounting on the box overlooking the fact that the police have registered a crime against the employee of the respondents. The wound certificate and other relevant records were produced. The person who witnessed the incident was also examined. It seems to be so unfortunate that the claim petition was dismissed though the victim suffered very serious injuries affecting his memory power. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he has suffered very serious injuries and is not able to move from one place to another.

¶26

RFA No.309 of 2016 3

¶27

But the learned Sub Judge entered into a finding that the abovesaid victim had given oral evidence in the criminal case as PW2 and the certified copy of the same was obtained and produced as Ext.B4. The fact that the victim had not given direct evidence alone is not sufficient to reject the suit or to enter into an adverse finding regarding the negligence contributed. It is not safe to insist direct evidence from the injured regarding the real cause of the accident, when it is otherwise proved by direct evidence of witnesses and other relevant records. The reason advanced by the trial court for dismissing the application cannot be sustained and hence set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with the law in force by affording ample opportunity to the appellant and the respondents to prove their respective cases by oral and documentary evidence, for which, the parties shall appear before the trial court on 02-06-2022.

¶28

There will be a further direction to dispose of the matter within a time schedule of three months from the

¶29

RFA No.309 of 2016 4

¶30

date of appearance of the parties and report compliance.

¶31

The appeal is allowed in part accordingly. No costs.

¶32

The appellant is exempted from paying the court fee

¶33

since the remand is not on the fault of the appellant as per Section 67 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. So there is no necessity to recover the court fee payable under Order XXXIII Rule 14 C.P.C.

¶34

Sd/- P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE

amk

RFA No.309 of 2016 5

APPENDIX

APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES :

¶39

ANNEXURE A1	:	COPY OF THE I.A NO.775 OF 2015 .
ANNEXURE A2	:	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO.775 OF 2015 DATED 4-6-2015.
ANNEXURE A3	:	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-8-2015 IN I.A NO.1110 OF 2015.
ANNEXURE A4	:	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-8-2015 IN I.A NO.1021 OF 2015.

¶40

RESPONDENTS'S ANNEXURES : NIL.

Kunjuraman Pillai v. M/S.Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunjuraman Pillai v. M/S.Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

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

Sheila Raman P.Kutty Vs P.R.Haridas

Shaibu Vs Subhakumar

Siyadh Vs Titto

The Oriental Insusrance Co.Ltd. Vs T.P.Najeeb

The Oriental Insurance Company Vs Sicily(Died)

Manoj Zachariah Vs Kerala State Electricity Board