Partly allowed

Jibin Antony v. Unnikrishnan Nair A.N

Kerala HC3 Feb 2023MACA/367/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court, in a motor accident claims appeal, allowed the appeal to the extent of remitting the Original Petition to the Tribunal. The issue was whether the appellant's driver possessed a valid license. As the produced document was non-original, the Court could not verify license validity itself. The remand allows the Tribunal to consider additional evidence on this specific issue.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition is remitted to the Tribunal solely for the question of whether the driver had a valid license, to allow both parties to lead additional evidence.

Jibin Antony Vs Unnikrishnan Nair A.N — 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

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 14TH MAGHA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 367 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(MV)186/2017 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOTTAYAM / III

¶7

ADDITIONAL MACT, KOTTAYAM

¶8

APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶9

JIBIN ANTONY

¶10

AGED 27 YEARS
S/O ANTONY VARGHESE,RESIDING AT
MUKKATTUKAVUNKAL HOUSE, BANGLAMKUNNEL BHAGOM,
KARUKCHAL P.O., KARUKACHAL
VILLAGE,CHANGANACHERRY TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686540

¶11

BY ADVS.
T.C.SURESH MENON
ABRAHAM P.KORAH
B.DEEPAK

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶13

1 UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR A.N, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O NARAYANANKUTTY,RESIDING AT PAKATHUSSERIYIL HOUSE, THIRUVARPPU P.O., THIRUVARPPU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686033

¶14

2 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686001

¶15

LAL K JOSEPH -SC

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MACA.No.367/2023

..2..

JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for both sides were ad idem that this appeal can be admitted and disposed of today itself, on the basis of the documents and evidence, which they handed over across the Bar, with consent that it can be acted upon by this Court without dispute.

¶21

The only controversy in this appeal, filed by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle involved in the accident, is if he had a valid license at the time of the accident; but which the appellant says he could not produce before the Tribunal; thereby leading to an inference that there was violation of policy, in turn, leading to an order of recovery from him, after payment to the claimant by the Insurance Company.

¶22

Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon – learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently, argued that his client had a valid license at the time of the accident and that same has been produced before this Court, invoking the provisions of Order XLI Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). He prayed that, therefore, either this Court accept the said documents as additional evidence and allow this appeal; or that the matter

¶23

..3..

¶24

MACA.No.367/2023

¶25

be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, after giving the parties necessary opportunities.

¶26

Sri.Lal K Joseph – learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent, in response, submitted that if this Court is only inclined to remit the matter to the Tribunal to test the veracity of the additional document produced before this Court, he will not stand in the way; however, praying that no further affirmative declarations be made in favour of the appellant.

¶27

I notice from the files that no summons have been issued to respondent 1; but that this would be unnecessary because, the appellant confines his plea only against the 2^nd respondent Insurance Company qua the “pay and recover” order of the Tribunal.

¶28

When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that the view of the Tribunal, making the appellant culpable to pay the insurance company, is based on the finding that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid license. Even though, the appellant has produced a document before this Court, it is not an original one; and therefore, this Court cannot act upon it under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 26 of the CPC. The best this Court can do, therefore, is to remit the matter to the Tribunal for consideration of this aspect

¶29

..4..

¶30

MACA.No.367/2023

¶31

alone. Since this is not opposed by the Insurance Company, I choose to adopt the said course.

¶32

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed to the limited extent of remitting the Original Petition to the Tribunal, solely, on the question whether the driver of the vehicle had a valid license; for which purpose, said Tribunal will offer both parties necessary opportunities of leading additional evidence as per law.

¶33

In all other respects, the Award of the Tribunal will remain unaltered; and obviously, therefore, the 1^st respondent will be at full liberty to receive the amount of compensation, if already deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal; or, in the alternative, to recover it from them as per law.

¶34

Needless to say, if, after the afore exercise, the appellant is exonerated from liability, then, the amount deposited under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act shall be returned to them, subject to the costs, if any, to be ordered by the Tribunal.

¶35

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN , JUDGE

SAS/ACR

MACA.No.367/2023

..5..

APPENDIX OF MACA 367/2023

¶40

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-AORIGINAL COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE
PARTICULARS OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE
OF THE TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DATED 22.8.2014.

Jibin Antony v. Unnikrishnan Nair A.N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jibin Antony v. Unnikrishnan Nair A.N

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

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Shabu Kurian

The Thuruthippuram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 1789 Vs V.R. Antony

Ayisha, Vs New India Assurace Company Ltd.

Reetha Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

National Insurance Compant Limitted, Vs Kevin Kuriakose

Denny v M, Vs 1. State of Kerala