Allowed

Omana v. Sushama Sharafudheen

Kerala HC4 Dec 2023MACA/2122/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Accident Claims Appeal filed by the claimant and ordered the Original Petition to be remanded back to the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, for fresh consideration of the claims in the light of the earlier remands raised by the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the appeal and remanded the Original Petition back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration including the appellant's claims.

Omana Vs Sushama Sharafudheen — 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 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

MACA NO. 2122 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 14.03.2022 IN O.P(M.V) NO.1330/2015 OF THE

¶7

PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

OMANA,
D/.O. SANKARAN, AGED 56 YEARS,
KIZHUVANA (H), THACHOLITHAZHATH, KANNAKARA (PO),
KOZHIKODE (DIST), NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 418 S,
MAHIMAPUR, BIBNAMAU, KERAKAT TALUK, JAUNPUR (DT),
PIN - 222136
BY ADVS. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
 SMT.RAKHI RAMACHANDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 SUSHAMA SHARAFUDHEEN, 'SHAS', CHETTAMKUNNU, P.O. THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670101

¶12

2 SEENATH, W/O. FIROZ, MARATHETHIL HOUSE, P.O. PILAKOOL, TEMPLE ROAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670101

¶13

3 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NOOR COMPLEX, ARAYEDATHUPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673004 REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER.,

¶14

4 NILOFARSHA W/O.NAJEEB KASIM, "SHAS" STATE BANK COLONY, CHETTAMKUNNU, THALASSERY., PIN - 670101 R3 BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANTHI

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 04.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶16

FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.A.C.A.No.2122 of 2023

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 04^th day of December, 2023

¶21

The appeal on hand is originated from an award passed by Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

¶22

Kozhikode (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 14.03.2022 in O.P (M.V) No.1330/2015. Appellant is the claimant before the Tribunal in the above Original Petition.

¶23

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that originally an award was passed by the Tribunal in O.P(M.V) No.1330/2015 on 31.05.2016 in

¶24

her favour granting a sum of ₹6,250/- as compensation. Challenging the quantum, the appellant has filed an appeal as M.A.C.A No.3096/2017. At the

¶25

very same time the respondents have filed an application seeking to set aside the award which was passed ex parte against them by the Tribunal. That

¶26

M.A.C.A.No.2122 of 2023

¶27

¶28

application was dismissed. M.A.C.A.No.3096/2017 was pending before this Court at the relevant time. Since the application seeking to set aside the ex parte award was dismissed by the Tribunal, respondent in the Original Petition has filed O.P(MAC) No.93/2017 before this Court. This Court has considered the Original Petition, set aside the award and remanded the case back to the Tribunal. Thereafter, on 14.03.2022 the Tribunal has considered the Original Petition and passed a fresh award granting ₹6,750/- as compensation.

¶29

Against the award 1^st respondent has filed M.A.C.A No.3954/2022. In that appeal this Court has set aside the award and remanded the Original Petition back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and passing of an award. At that point of time the appellant has withdrawn M.A.C.A No.3096/2017 and

¶30

M.A.C.A.No.2122 of 2023

¶31

¶32

obtained liberty to file a fresh appeal. M.A.C.A No.3954/2022 filed by the 1^st respondent was allowed, the award was set aside and the Original Petition was remanded for fresh consideration of the Tribunal. In the meantime, the claimant had preferred the appeal on hand. Since the Original Petition was already remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh reconsideration, this Court finds it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to allow this appeal and to remand the case of the appellant also to the Tribunal.

¶33

In the result, appeal is allowed and the Original Petition is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration with reference to the claims of the appellant also.

¶34

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

NAB

Omana v. Sushama Sharafudheen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omana v. Sushama Sharafudheen

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

Varughese John Vs Manager

Varkey Mathew Vs the Branch Manager the Oriental Insurance Co, Ltd.

Prameela Vs United India Insurance Company

Shibin Vs Kannan P.H.

Babu @ Baburaj Vs Shine Kumar

Abdul Alam Vs United India Insurance Company