Partly allowed

State of Kerala v. Mohammed Issak

Kerala HC27 May 2022RFA/32/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal quashed a trial court decree holding the State liable for a motor accident. The High Court held contributory negligence likely involving the vehicle rider, who was not impleaded. It directed the State to deposit 50% of the awarded compensation and remanded the matter for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

Trial court judgment set aside; matter remanded for fresh disposal with direction to Appellant to deposit 50% of award amount.

State of Kerala Vs Mohammed Issak — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

RFA NO. 32 OF 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10-07-2017 IN OS 366/2011 OF
ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD

¶7

APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BRIDGES, PWD, CHITTUR,PALAKKAD.

¶10

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BRIDGES, PWD, PALAKKAD.

¶11

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTING STATE OF KERALA.

¶12

5 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, ROADS AND BRIDGES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶14

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶15

MOHAMMED ISSAK,
S/O.P.S.ABDUL ALI, T.B.STREET, PUDUNAGARAM, CHITTUR
TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶16

BY ADVS.

¶17

SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN

¶18

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
27.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

RFA NO. 32 OF 2018 2

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

In connection with a motor vehicle accident, an

¶22

FIR was registered against the rider of the two
wheeler and final report was also submitted against
him in connection with the injuries sustained by the
pillion rider. But a suit was filed as against the
State Government on the ground that the alleged
accident occurred due to the dumping of concrete
slabs and rubble on the side of the road without
proper sign board, without making the rider of the
vehicle against whom the final report was submitted
as a party to the proceedings. Even if it is assumed
that no sign board was installed by the State
Government or the contractor regarding keeping of
concrete slab and rubble on the side of the road, the
rider of the vehicle cannot wriggle out of the
liability simply on that reason. It may be a case of
contributory negligence, especially at the initial
stage, an FIR was registered and after investigation,
final report was lodged against the rider of the
vehicle. It is also submitted that in the criminal

¶23

RFA NO. 32 OF 2018 3

¶24

case, he had pleaded guilty for the offence alleged.
The various observations made by the trial court that
the accident happened due to the sole negligence of
the State Government, prima facie appears to be not
based on the evidence, the scene mahazar prepared and
the involvement of rider of the vehicle. The fact
that it was ridden by a third person, who is not a
party to the suit was not properly considered by the
trial court and that has resulted in miscarriage of
justice. The suit was instituted in the year 2010
and the victim/plaintiff had suffered serious
injuries and had undergone surgery to his head and
limb. As discussed earlier, it may be a case of
contributory negligence and it has to be decided by
the trial court by impleading the rider of the
vehicle or to apportion the liability as against the
State Government based on the contribution of
negligence, if any. Hence, it is fit and proper to
direct the appellant/State Government to deposit 50%
of the award amount within one month from today. On
such deposit, it shall be released to the
petitioner/plaintiffasinitialpaymentof

¶25

RFA NO. 32 OF 2018 4

¶26

compensation, which shall be adjusted towards the
final award/decree. The decree and judgment of the
trial court hence will stand set aside. The matter
is remanded back to the trial court for fresh
disposal. The parties shall appear before the trial
court on 08/06/2022.

¶27

The appeal is allowed in part accordingly. No
costs.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

P.SOMARAJAN

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

msp

State of Kerala v. Mohammed Issak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Mohammed Issak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jimmy Elias Vs Satyam Audios

P.K.Gopalan (Died) Vs v.K.Kartyhikeyan & Others

Rajeevan@ Rajeevanandan Vs Subrahmanian

Varghese, Vs Jewel Rock Hire Purchase

Krishnan Namboodiri, Vs Savithri

Matampottayil Aabida Vs Iranikakath Rashit