Partly allowed

Rosily Thomas v. 1. Sajitha P.K.

Kerala HC14 Feb 2023MACA/1164/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a Motor Accident Claims Appeal seeking to set aside a Tribunal order exonerating an insurance company due to alleged driver license invalidity, but remanded the original petition to allow proof of license adequacy for the specific vehicle.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition is remanded to the Tribunal solely for evidence on whether the driver had a proper license to operate the crane vehicle; compensation upheld.

Rosily Thomas Vs 1. Sajitha P.K. — 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 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 25TH MAGHA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 1164 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.11.2021 IN OP(MV) NO.492/2019 OF THE
DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
KALPETTA

¶7

APPELLANT:

¶8

ROSILY THOMAS, PROPRIETOR, KARAKKAMALA TIMBER
MERCHANT KARAKKAMALA POST, MANATHAVADY,
PIN – 670645, (OWNER OF KL-72-B-6003)

¶9

BY ADV ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 SAJITHA P.K., AGED 49 YRS, W/O MAMMY ELAYEDATH, ELAYEDATH HOUSE, KANIYAMBETTA POST AND VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN – 673122

¶12

2 FATHIMATH FASNA E., AGED 31 YRS, D/O MAMMY ELAYEDATH, ELAYEDATH HOUSE, KANIYAMBETTA POST AND VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN – 673122

¶13

3 FAWAZ IBRAHIM, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O MAMMY ELAYEDATH, ELAYEDATH HOUSE, KANIYAMBETTA POST AND VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN – 673122

¶14

4 ROSNA AYSHA, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O MAMMY ELAYEDATH, ELAYEDATH HOUSE, KANIYAMBETTA POST AND VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN – 673122

¶15

5 MUSTHAFA E.C., AGED 23 YRS. S/O MAMMY ELAYEDATH, ELAYEDATH HOUSE, KANIYAMBETTA POST AND VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN – 673122

¶16

6 RAJESH RAJI, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O RAJ, KUTTIVEDICHANPATTI VILLAGE, SOETALLI POST, KRISHNAGIRI, TAMILNADU, PIN – 635112

¶17

7 THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD MAIN ROAD, KALPETTA POST, WAYANAD, PIN – 673121

¶18

MACA 1164/22

¶19

¶20

BY ADV. - P.K.MANOJKUMAR

¶21

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

MACA 1164/22

JUDGMENT

This matter is admitted with the consent of both sides and I

¶26

proceed to dispose it of today itself, as required by them.

¶27

The owner of the vehicle, which was involved in an

¶28

accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of its driver; thus causing death of a person - namely, Sri.Mammy Elayedath, has filed this Appeal solely impugning that part of the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal , Kalpetta (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short), in OP(MV) No.492/2019, which has exonerated the Insurance Company finding that the driver did not

¶29

have a valid driving license to operate the vehicle in question.

¶30

3 . Sri.Abraham Mathew – learned counsel for the

¶31

appellant, vehemently argued that the Tribunal has already found that the driver of the vehicle was covered by Ext.B1 driving

¶32

license, but that it incorrectly concluded that, to operate the vehicle involved - which is in the nature of a crane - same would not suffice. He asserted that this finding was wrong and that it

¶33

had been entered into because his client was unable to lead

¶34

MACA 1164/22

¶35

¶36

evidence at the relevant time, due to certain unavoidable

¶37

circumstances. He, therefore, prayed that either the Award, to the

¶38

extent impugned, be set aside; or the Original Petition be remanded to the Tribunal, so that his client can prove that the license in question was enough to operate the vehicle involved.

¶39

4 . Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar – learned Standing Counsel for

¶40

the Insurance Company, on the other hand, submitted that, as rightly found by the Tribunal, the Police had charged the driver of the vehicle both under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

¶41

1988 and under Section 3(1) thereunder. He submitted that, therefore, it is prima facie proved that he was not having a valid driving license and thus prayed that this Appeal be dismissed.

¶42

5 . I have considered the afore rival contentions on the basis of evidence on record – copies of which have been handed over across the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties with the express consent that it can be acted upon by this Court without dispute.

¶43

6 . It is without dispute that the driver of the vehicle had

¶44

Ext.B1 driving license in his favour. However, the question

¶45

MACA 1164/22

¶46

¶47

whether this was enough to operate the vehicle in question, is the

¶48

issue impelled in this Appeal.

¶49

7 . I notice from the files that the appellant had remained

¶50

ex parte; though she asserts, through her learned counsel, that she

¶51

had filed a written statement, as also documents, which she intended to rely upon.

¶52

8 . That said, the specific argument of Sri.Abraham Mathew – learned counsel for the appellant, is that the report of Police is not conclusive proof of the factum of the driver of the vehicle not having a valid driving license; and that this is a matter, which ought to have been allowed to be proved by him appropriately.

¶53

9 . Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company takes the stand that the documents of Police have binding force.

¶54

10. I must say that there is some force in the submissions of the appellant because, the question whether the driver of the

¶55

vehicle had a proper license is one that ought to have been proved through cogent and reliable evidence, including reports

¶56

¶57

MACA 1164/22

¶58

from the competent Authorities. This, not having been done,

¶59

certainly, the Tribunal cannot be found to be in error.

¶60

11. However, since the appellant says that she will be able

¶61

to prove that the driver was authorised to operate the vehicle in question, through various germane documents and the notifications holding the field, I am certainly of the view that she should be given an opportunity to do so; for which purpose, the Original Petition deserves to be remanded.

¶62

In the afore circumstances and since the directions that I propose herein will not cause any prejudice to the claimants, I dispose of this Appeal with the following directions:

¶63

a ) The finding of the Tribunal with respect to the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants are upheld.

¶64

b ) The Original Petition is remanded to the learned Tribunal solely on the question as to whether the driver of the vehicle had a proper license to operate it; for which purpose, both the appellant and the Insurance Company will be given necessary opportunity of being heard and leading additional/fresh evidence;

¶65

thus culminating in an appropriate fresh order, as expeditiously as

¶66

MACA 1164/22

¶67

¶68

is possible, but not later than nine months from the date of

¶69

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶70

c ) Needless to say, in view of (a) above, the claimants will be at full liberty to receive the amount of compensation deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, or to recover it from them in terms of law, as per the orders of the Tribunal.

¶71

d ) I direct the parties to mark appearance before the

¶72

Tribunal at 11 a.m on 04.03.2023.

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

RR

¶75

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶76

JUDGE

Rosily Thomas v. 1. Sajitha P.K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rosily Thomas v. 1. Sajitha P.K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

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

V.K. Chandran Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Limited

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