Allowed

Renjan James v. James M.C.

Kerala HC6 Nov 2023MACA/104/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the provision allowing recovery from the owner and driver, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in light of the production of a valid driving licence.

What did the court decide?

The award to the extent granting recovery from respondents 1 and 2 is set aside; the Original Petition is remanded to the Tribunal for fixation of liability afresh.

Renjan James Vs James M.C. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

MACA NO. 104 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 09.11.2018 IN OP(MV)NO.872/2016 OF

¶7

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA

¶8

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:

¶9

1RENJAN JAMES
S/O.JAMES M.C.,
ROJAN VILLA, MOOPPASSEERIL HOUSE,
ATTARA KARA, MUKKANNOR P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 577.
2JOMON JOHNY
S/O.JOHNY, PAROKKARAN HOUSE,
ATTARA KARA, MUKKANNOR P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 577.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.CYRIAC KURIAN
 SRI.BABY THOMAS
 SRI.GEORGE T.J

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶12

1JAMES M.C.
ROJAN VILLA, MOOPPASSEERIL HOUSE, ATTARA KARA,
MUKKANNOR P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 577.

¶13

2THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER, CHERUPUSHPAM BUILDINGS, MAIN ROAD,
PALA - 686 574
(POLICY NO.576028311510001770
VALIDITY 10/10/2015 TO 09/10/2016).

¶14

R2 BY ADV.SRI KIRAN PETER KURIAKOSE

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.11.2023, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

MACA NO. 104/2022

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 06^th day of November, 2023.

¶20

This appeal is directed against an award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) on 09.11.2018 in O.P(M.V) No.872 of 2016. The appellants are respondents 1 and 2 in the Original Petition.

¶21

For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 in accordance with their status in the above Original Petition.

¶22

The 1^st and 2^nd respondents were set ex parte before the Tribunal. Their grievance was that the 1^st respondent though had a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time of the motor accident, he could not produce it before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the 2^nd respondent was found to have violated the conditions of the policy obtained in his favour from the 3^rd respondent and the latter was permitted to

¶23

MACA NO. 104/2022

¶24

¶25

have the compensation with interest and costs recovered from himself as well as the driver after making the deposit in favour of the petitioners. The original of the driving licence as well as its true copy are now produced by the learned counsel for the 1^st and 2^nd respondents before this Court alongwith I.A No.01/2022, with a prayer to receive those in additional evidence.

¶26

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the 1^st respondent was holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time of the motor accident but due to oversight, it was not produced before the Tribunal during consideration of the Original Petition. Therefore, he has produced the driving licence now alongwith an interlocutory application seeking to receive it as additional evidence and thereby to reverse the finding of the Tribunal on violation of policy conditions and permission stood granted by it to recover the compensation with interest and cost from respondents 1 and 2.

¶27

MACA NO. 104/2022

¶28

¶29

It is submitted that in a similar appeal, another Single Bench has set aside the impugned award to the extent it permitted the 3^rd respondent to recover the compensation amount from the registered owner and driver of the vehicle and remanded the Original Petition for consideration of the Tribunal, afresh.

¶30

The learned counsel canvassed for taking a similar view in the appeal on hand. It is noticed from the copy of the judgment furnished for perusal that the factual situation is identical. The motor accident was also a common one. In the case referred to by the learned counsel, the award to the extent it granted right of recovery of the compensation amount to the 3^rd respondent was set aside and the Original Petition was remanded to the Tribunal for consideration afresh.

¶31

In the above circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal. The impugned award to the extent it granted the right to the 3^rd respondent to recover the compensation

¶32

MACA NO. 104/2022

¶33

¶34

amount from respondents 1 and 2 in the Original Petition is set aside. 1^st respondent shall produce the original driving licence before the Tribunal, for its consideration. The Tribunal shall fix the liability on the respondents afresh after granting reasonable opportunities to the parties in the Original Petition to contest on the validity and propriety of the driving licence produced and pass appropriate orders.

¶35

For facilitating the Tribunal to take an early decision in the matter, the parties to this appeal are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 04.01.2024 at 11 a.m. The Tribunal shall decide the issue and fix the liability on respondents within two months from the date of appearance of the parties before the Tribunal.

¶36

 Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH

JUDGE

MACA NO. 104/2022

¶41

APPENDIX OF MACA 104/2022

¶42

PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURE:

¶43

ANNEXURE A1TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE OF THE 1ST
APPELLANT

¶44

RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES: NIL

¶45

/TRUE COPY/

¶46

P A TO JUDGE

Renjan James v. James M.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renjan James v. James M.C.

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

Suresh Vs Baburaj

Sulochana Vs Vinodhan

Hamza Vs Shanavas

Rugmani Vs United India Insurance Company

Prabha Vs United India Insurance Company

Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co. (P) Ltd. Vs K. Nanu