Allowed

Vijayan v. Manoj.K

Kerala HC12 Jan 2023OP (MAC)/7/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This original petition challenges an MACT order dismissing compensation claims under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on limitation grounds. The court held that the six-month limitation of Section 166(3) does not apply to Section 164 claims. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the unnumbered claim petition was directed to be registered and tried expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order Ext.P2 set aside; unnumbered O.P.(MV) directed to be registered and tried expeditiously; original petition disposed off.

Vijayan Vs Manoj.K — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 22ND POUSHA, 1944
OP (MAC) NO. 7 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

¶6

1VIJAYAN,
AGED 67 YEARS,
S/O SIVARAMAN, DOOR NO 5/500, KARIBANMOOLA,
PATTAVAYAL, GUDALUR, THE NILGIRIS,
TAMILNADU. PIN – 643240

¶7

2AARAV P PRAVEESH,
AGED 4 YEARS,
S/O LATE PRAVEESH P.V, DOOR NO 5/500, KARIBANMOOLA,
PATTAVAYAL, GUDALUR, THE NILGIRIS, TAMILNADU -643240
(REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN GRAND FATHER VIJAYAN,
AGED 67 YEARS, S/O SIVARAMAN, DOOR NO 5/500,
KARIBANMOOLA, PATTAVAYAL, GUDALUR, THE NILGIRIS,
TAMILNADU. PIN –643240

¶8

BY ADVS.
A.R.NIMOD
M.A.AUGUSTINE

¶9

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1MANOJ.K.,
S/O ANANDAN B.K,
VAKAYATHU HOUSE, ANJUKUNNU P.O,
MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD -, PIN – 670645

¶11

2IBRAI
S/O AHAMMED,
KANNAMPALLY HOUSE, KELLUR P.O,
PORUNNANORE, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD -, PIN – 670645

¶12

3 THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD MGT BUILDING, KALPETTA, WAYANAD. PIN – 673122

¶13

BY ADV.

¶14

SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH, SC, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

¶15

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2023, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OP (MAC) NO. 7 OF 2023 -2-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Ext.P2 order dated 08.11.2022 of the MACT,

¶19

Wayanad dismissing the two unnumbered claim petitions preferred for claiming compensation in respect of an accident occurred on 12.04.2022, being barred by the limitation, is under challenge in this original petition. It is contended that in the accident aforementioned, three passengers travelling in the car bearing registration No.KL-76-9140 di ed except a minor child and guardian, the petitioners herein. Petitions were filed under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and not under Section 166. Provisions of Section 166(3) Act for determining the limitation ought not come into play, otherwise also, the provisions of the limitation cannot be taken away in view of the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act.

¶20

Issue notice before admission. Learned

¶21

counsel for the respondents accepts notice.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties

¶23

OP (MAC) NO. 7 OF 2023 -3-

¶24

and appraised the paper book.

¶25

It would be appropriate to reproduce Section 164 and sub section 3 of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶26

164. Payment of compensation in case of death or grievous hurt, etc.

¶27

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, a compensation, of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.

¶28

(2) In any claim for compensation under subsection (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or grievous hurt in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of the vehicle concerned or of any other person.

¶29

(3) Where, in respect of death or grievous hurt due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation has been paid

¶30

OP (MAC) NO. 7 OF 2023 -4-

¶31

under any other law for the time being in force, such amount of compensation shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section.

¶32

166. Application for compensation.-

¶33

(1)xxxxxxx

¶34

(2)xxxxxxx

¶35

(3)No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accid ent.

¶36

5. Prior to the amendment clause of the Motor

¶37

Vehicles Act Section 163A was in vouge for filing the claim petition on the basis of no fault liability prescribed in the structure formula. Section 164 is pari materia to the aforementioned provision. Th e Act opens with the non obstante clause and therefore the provisions of sub section 3 of Section 166 would not have come into the way of the petitioners for the purpose of prosecuting the O.P.(MV) preferred on 25.10.2022. The order impugned Ext.P2 is preposterous, opaque and illegal, accordingly, set aside.

¶38

OP (MAC) NO. 7 OF 2023 -5-

¶39

Unnumbered O.P.(MV) (C.F.7135/2022) arising

¶40

from Ext.P1 claim petition on the file of the MACT, Wayanad is directed to be registered and tried in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. Original petition stands disposed off.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

¶43

vv

¶44

OP (MAC) NO. 7 OF 2023 -6-

¶45

APPENDIX OF OP (MAC) 7/2023

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶47

Exhibit-P1TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION FILED
BEFORE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, WAYANAD, KALPETTA DATED
25.10.2022
Exhibit-P2TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED
08.11.2022 IN UNNUMBERED O.P. (MV)
(C.F 7135/2022) ON THE FILE OF THE
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
WAYANAD, KALPETTA

Vijayan v. Manoj.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayan v. Manoj.K

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

T. a Devassykutty Vs the State of Kerala

Renugopalan Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Ansif Benasor Vs Union of India

Mary Teresa Gladys M.P Vs the District Collector Ernakulam

Sirajudheen T.P Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education

Madhusoodhanan Pm Vs State of Kerala