Remanded

The Correspondent, Narayana College of Engineering v. Farook

Kerala HC13 Feb 2023MACA/595/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In merged appeals MACA 594 and 595 of 2015, the High Court remand,ed both original petitions to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court refused to adjudicate on the validity of a permit document produced by the appellant as it was disputed by the insurer. The remand was granted solely for verifying whether the offending vehicle had a valid permit

What did the court decide?

The appeals were allowed to the extent of remanding the Original Petitions to the Tribunal solely for verifying whether the offending vehicle had a valid permit at the time of the accident.

The Correspondent, Narayana College of Engineering Vs… — 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

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 24TH MAGHA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 594 OF 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 21.05.2014 IN OP(MV) NO.1239/2006 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA

¶7

APPELLANT:

¶8

THE CORRESPONDENT, NARAYANAGURU COLLEGE OF
ENGINEERING, MANALUMMOODU.P.O, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 MUNEER, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED K.P., III/336, CHARUVILA VEEDU,NEAR KURUVANI MARKET, UPANIYOOR DESOM,KALLIYOOR VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT MANALIVILA VEEDU,R.C.STREET, NEAR SPINNING MILL,BALARAMAPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK – 695 121. (DELETED)

¶12

2 PRABHAKARAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, SINDHU NIVAS,NEAR SASTHAMCOIL,AKG NAGAR,PEROORKADA.P.O,KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695005. (DELETED)

¶13

3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,LMS COMPOUND, NEAR MUSEUM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶14

4 FAROOK, S/O.BADARUDEEN,CHEKITTAVILA VEEDU,KARAKKAMANDAPAM,NEMOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695020. (DELETED)

¶15

5 THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, NEYYATTINKARA,TRIVANDRUM-695121.

¶16

(RESPONDENTS 1,2 AND 4 ARE DELETED AS PER ORDER IN
I.A.NO.1/2023 DATED 13.2.2023)

¶17

MACA 594 & 595/15

¶18

¶19

BY ADVS.
SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR
SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN

¶20

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.02.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.595/2015, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

MACA 594 & 595/15

¶22

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 24TH MAGHA, 1944 MACA NO. 595 OF 2015

¶25

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 21.05.2014 IN OP(MV) NO.1320/2006
OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA

¶26

APPELLANT:

¶27

THE CORRESPONDENT, NARAYANAGURU COLLEGE
OF ENGINEERING, MANALUMMOODU.P.O,
KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶28

BY ADV SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

¶29

RESPONDENTS:

¶30

1 FAROOK, S/O.BADARUDEEN,TC.51/2906,CHEKKITAVILA VEEDU,KARIMANN DESOM,NEMOM VILLAGE,NEMOM.P.O, NOW RESIDING AT PANAVILA VEEDU, VAZHIMUKKU,ARALUMOODU,NEYYATTINKARA-69512 (DELETED)

¶31

2 LAILA, W/O FAROOK,TC.51/2906,CHEKKIAVILA VEEDU,KARIMANN DESOM,NEMOM VILLAGE,NEMOM.P.O, NOW RESIDING AT PANAVILA VEEDU, VAZHIMUKKU,ARALUMOODU,NEYYATTINKARA-69512 (DELELTED)

¶32

3 SHAN, S/O.FAROOK,NOW MAJOR, AGED 24 YEARS, TC.51/2906,CHEKKITAVILA VEEDU,KARIMANN DESOM, NEMOM VILLAGE,NEMOM.P.O,NOW RESIDING AT PANAVILA VEEDU,VAZHIMUKKU,ARALUMOODU,NEYYATTINKARA-69512 (DELETED)

¶33

4 PRABHAKARAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, SINDHU NIVAS,NEAR SASTHAMCOIL,AKG NAGAR, VAZHAYILA,PEROORKADA.P.O,KUDAPPANAKUNNU PANCHAYATH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695005. (DELETED)

¶34

MACA 594 & 595/15

¶35

¶36

(RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE DELETED AS PER ORDER IN
I.A.NO.1/2023 DATED 13.2.2023)

¶37

5 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, LMS COMPOUND,NEAR MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶38

6 THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, NEYYATTINKARA,NEYYATTINKARA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695121.

¶39

BY ADVS.
SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR
SRI.JOY JOSEPH MANAYATHU
SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN

¶40

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.02.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.594/2015, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MACA 594 & 595/15

JUDGMENT

‘N arayana Guru College of Engineering’ is the appellant in

¶45

these cases and they impugn the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short), in Original Petitions filed by two different set of claimants seeking compensation for death and injuries, caused consequent to a road accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, which is admittedly owned by them.

¶46

2 . Sri.S.Mohammed Al Rafi – learned counsel for the appellant, conceded that his client is not challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants, but only that portion of the Award which permits the Insurance Company, namely, United India Insurance Company Ltd, to recover it from his client. He explained that such an order was issued by the Tribunal on the finding that the offending vehicle did not have a valid permit, but that this was because his client was unable to

¶47

produce the same on record at the relevant time. He submitted

¶48

MACA 594 & 595/15

¶49

¶50

that his client has, therefore, produced the original endorsement of permit, along with I.A.No.1430/2015 in MACA No.594/2015; and thus prayed that the same be reckoned as additional evidence under the provisions of Order XLI of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), thus exonerating them from the liability of paying the Insurance Company; or in the alternative, the petitions be remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration of this issue, after affording them an opportunity of leading additional evidence.

¶51

3 . Sri.T.V.Ajaya Kumar – learned counsel for the United India Insurance Company, submitted that his client does not admit the document now produced on record by the appellant; but that they will not stand in the way of this Court remanding the cases to the learned Tribunal, for allowing the appellant to lead fresh evidence. He, however, prayed that his client also be reserved necessary opportunity during such process.

¶52

4 . Sri.P.M.M.Najeeb Khan – learned counsel for the New India Assurance Company in MACA No.594/2015 and Sri.Joy Joseph – learned counsel appearing for the said Insurance

¶53

MACA 594 & 595/15

¶54

¶55

Company in MACA No.595/2015, argued that their client has

¶56

been fully exonerated of any liability and therefore, that they are only a formal party.

¶57

5 . When I consider and evaluate the afore submissions, it is clear that Sri.Mohammed Al Rafi only requires that the vehicle of his client be found to have been with a valid permit, for which purpose, he relies on the additional document produced in MACA No.594/2015. However, since the United India Insurance Company - which has been mulcted with the liability to pay the claimants in both cases - disputes the document, it would not be available to this Court to consider its validity at this time.

¶58

6 . I am, therefore, of the firm view that it would be

¶59

better to remand the Original Petitions to the learned Tribunal, solely for the purpose of verifying whether the offending vehicle had a valid permit at the relevant time; for which purpose, the appellants and the United India Insurance Company will be given necessary opportunity.

¶60

In the afore circumstances, I allow these Appeals to the limited extent of remanding the Original Petitions to the

¶61

MACA 594 & 595/15

¶62

¶63

Tribunal, however, solely on the issue as to whether the

¶64

offending vehicle had a valid permit at the time of the accident.

¶65

In all other respects, the Award of the Tribunal will stand

¶66

confirmed; and it will proceed to consider the afore issue alone, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard and of leading additional/fresh evidence to the appellants, as also the United Insurance Company.

¶67

A fresh Award in this regard will be issued not later than

¶68

nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶69

for which purpose, I direct the parties to appear before it at 11 A.M. on 04.03.2023.

¶70

I reiteratingly clarify that nothing contained in this

¶71

judgment will affect the right of the claimants to either receive the money deposited before the Tribunal by the United India Insurance Company, if already done; or to recover it from them in terms of the directions of the Tribunal, as per law.

¶72

The Registry is directed to return the original documents produced by the appellants along with I.A.No.1430/2015, after substituting it with authenticated copies, as per the applicable

MACA 594 & 595/15

Rules.

Sd/-

¶77

RR

¶78

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶79

JUDGE

¶80

MACA 594 & 595/15

¶81

¶82

APPENDIX OF MACA 594/2015

¶83

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure AA TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED
26.11.2004 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure AA TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY
NO.V19/1767/7/14 DATED 2/3/15 ISSUED BY
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶84

MACA 594 & 595/15

¶85

¶86

APPENDIX OF MACA 595/2015

¶87

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure AA TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED
26.11.2004 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure AA TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY
NO.ENDT.NO.V19/1767/7/14 DATED 2/3/15
ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The Correspondent, Narayana College of Engineering v. Farook

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Correspondent, Narayana College of Engineering v. Farook

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

Shine P.B Vs the District Collector

Suresh K Vs State of Kerala Represented by Its Secretary

Sinoomathaithattakunnel Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Annamma Cheriyan @ Annamma Vs Jawahar @ Babu

Thankamma Vs the Managing Director, Ksrtc, Thiruvananthapuram

The Correspondent,Sreenarayanaguru Coege of Engineering Vs Muneer