Remanded

V.K. Chandran v. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Kerala HC14 Feb 2023MACA/101/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, with parties' consent, adjudicated a Motor Accident Claims Appeal contesting the Tribunal's findings on ownership and driver's licence. The Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal solely to determine these factual issues after giving additional evidence opportunities within nine months.

What did the court decide?

Original Petition remanded to Tribunal solely to decide the existence of a valid driving licence and legal transfer of the vehicle, with parties to lead additional evidence.

V.K. Chandran Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Limited — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 25TH MAGHA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 101 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 26.02.2015 IN OPMV 910/2012 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶8

V.K. CHANDRAN AGED 53 YEARS S/O. KOCHUPILLAI, VATTEKATTU HOUSE, THALAKODE P.O., MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM – 686693.

¶9

BY ADVS. GEORGE SEBASTIAN M.D.SIMY

¶10

RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶11

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MARKET ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER., PIN - 682301

¶12

BY ADV N.S.NAJEEB

¶13

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

M.A.C.A No.101 of 2023

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This appeal is being heard and disposed of today with the consent of parties, and as requested by them.

¶18

The owner of the offending vehicle involved in the road accident is the appellant before this Court.

¶19

Consequent to the aforementioned road accident, the claimants moved OP(MV) No.910/2012 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam ('Tribunal' for short), seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by them. It has been allowed by the said Tribunal, however, exonerating the Insurance Company, on the finding that the driver, at the time of the accident, did not have a valid Driving Licence.

¶20

The appellant asserts that he was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident and further that the driver did have a valid Driving Licence at that time.

¶21

The afore submissions of Smt.M.D.Simy – learned counsel for the appellant, were controverted by Sri.N.S.Najeeb – learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, saying that, as evident from Annexure-C document produced by the appellant himself before this Court, the Police had charged the driver under Section 3(1), read with

¶22

M.A.C.A No.101 of 2023

¶23

¶24

Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act ('the Act' for short), thus indicating that he did not have a valid Driving License at the time of accident. He then pointed out that, even going by the registered details of ownership of the vehicle at the time when it was involved in the accident, the appellant was the owner. He argued that therefore, this appeal is without merit.

¶25

I have considered the afore rival submissions and have also gone through the evidence on record - copies of which have been made available to this Court by the learned counsel for the parties across the Bar, with the express consent that they can be acted upon without objection.

¶26

The accident occurred on 11.11.2011 and there is no dispute as regards the said factum or that the claimants sustained injuries. The only controversy projected before me is whether the driver had a valid Driving Licence at that time and if the vehicle was owned by the appellant.

¶27

In this regard, even though there is some force in the submissions of Sri.N.S.Najeeb – learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, that merely because there is an agreement of transfer - which is sought to be proved by the appellant relying upon Annexure-C Final Report of the Police - it is, normally, the registered owner who will be responsible,

¶28

M.A.C.A No.101 of 2023

¶29

¶30

be afforded an opportunity to prove a valid transfer cannot be denied to him.

¶31

Coming to the question of the Driving Licence of the driver, it is indubitable that the contention of the appellant is that he had such, but the Insurance Company says that this is belied by the fact that even Annexure – C Final Report shows that he has been charged under Section 3(1) of the Act.

¶32

Be that as it may, the question whether the driver had a Driving Licence and if the vehicle had been legally transferred, are issues on facts, which cannot be decided by this Court, in the absence of proper evidence.

¶33

I further notice that the appellant is trying to

¶34

prove his case, that the driver had a valid Driving Licence, on the strength of Annexure -B, which is an extract of the said Licence, not a primary evidence and he may have to corroborate it through other reliable and cogent methods. For this purpose, he will have to be given an opportunity of leaving additional evidence.

¶35

I record that the learned counsel for the Insurance Company did not oppose the proposal of this Court to remand the matter for the afore purpose; but that he pleaded that

¶36

M.A.C.A No.101 of 2023

¶37

¶38

they also be given necessary opportunity to defend their version appropriately.

¶39

In the afore circumstances, confirming the findings of the Tribunal in every other manner, I remand the Original Petition, solely for deciding whether the driver had a valid Driving License and whether the vehicle had been transferred legally, at the time of accident. For this purpose, both the owner, the driver and the Insurance Company will be given necessary opportunity of leading additional evidence and to be heard again; thus culminating in a Final Order on this aspect alone, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The parties will appear before the Tribunal at 11.00 A.M on 06.03.2023.

¶40

Since I have confirmed the findings of the Tribunal as regards the compensation to the claimants, the Insurance Company will have to pay the same to them, if it has not been already; done though their liberty to recover it from the owner will depend upon the decision of the Tribunal, consequent to the afore exercise.

¶41

After I dictated this part of the judgment, Sri.N.S.Najeeb intervened to say that the driver of the vehicle is not a party

¶42

M.A.C.A No.101 of 2023

¶43

¶44

to this appeal. I do not think that this is important because there is no claim against the driver and in any event, the appellant cannot shift his burden, if any to be found by the Tribunal, on to him in any manner. In fact, this is conceded to by the learned counsel for the appellant also. Hence, even though the driver will have the opportunity of proving that he had a valid Driving Licence before the Tribunal, no burden can be shifted upon him, pursuant to the afore directions of this Court.

¶45

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶46

lsn

¶47

M.A.C.A No.101 of 2023

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX OF MACA 101/2023

¶50

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶51

Annexure A A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN DATED 29.04.2012 IN CC. NO.197/2012 OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KOLENCHERRY

¶52

Annexure B A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF DRIVING LICENSE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT LICENSING AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, COIMBATORE. Annexure C A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 19.12.2011 IN CRIME NO. 335/2011 OF CHOTTANIKKARA POLICE STATION.

¶53

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶54

TRUE COPY

¶55

P.A TO JUDGE

¶56

LSN

V.K. Chandran v. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K. Chandran v. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited

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

Annamma Cheriyan @ Annamma Vs Jawahar @ Babu

Thankamma Vs the Managing Director, Ksrtc, Thiruvananthapuram

The Correspondent,Sreenarayanaguru Coege of Engineering Vs Muneer

Damodaran E.V. Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd., Represented by Its Branch Manager.

Dr. C. Mohana Kumaran Nair Vs Dr. V.P. Joy IAS

Rosily Thomas Vs 1. Sajitha P.K.