Dismissed

Binoj Kumar K.T v. Anoob.K.C

Kerala HC13 Sept 2023OP (MAC)/84/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an original petition under Article 226 seeking to stayMotor Accident Claims Tribunal proceedings. The Court held that criminal proceedings (beyeyond reasonable doubt) and MACT compensation proceedings (likely negligence) differ in scope; thus, a stay on criminal charges does not mandate staying MACT proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner directed to file pleas under Article 226 before the MACT regarding his liability for negligence.

Binoj Kumar K.T Vs Anoob.K.C — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 22ND BHADRA, 1945

¶5

OP (MAC) NO. 84 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 332/2020 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER/6TH RESPONDENT:

¶8

BINOJ KUMAR K. T.,
AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. KARUNAKARAN,
RESIDING AT THAZHE VELUTHEDUTHU,
VENGERI P. O., KOZHIKODE.
WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, DISTRIBUTION SECTION-II,
ATHANIKKAD ,KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673010.

¶9

BY ADVS.
 SRI. ARUN BABU
 SRI. G. HARIPRASAD

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1-5 & 7-8:

¶11

1ANOOB K. C.,
S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 50,
RESIDING AT 109, KANIYAMPATTA PARAMBA P. O.,
MALAPARAMBA, PAROPPADI, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673009.

¶12

2 REVATHY A. MENON, D/O. ANOOP KC, AGED 22, RESIDING AT 109, KANIYAMPATTA PARAMBA P. O., MALAPARAMBA, PAROPPADI, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673009.

¶13

3 APARANA A. MENON, D/O ANOOP KC, AGED 15, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND FATHER ANOOP KC , RESIDING AT 109, KANIYAMPATTA PARAMBA P. O., MALAPARAMBA, PAROPPADI, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673009.

¶14

4PANKAJAKSHY,
W/O. RAMACHANDRAKURUP, AGED 67,
RESIDING AT 5863, KAIPURATHU VEEDU,
PAROPPADI, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673009.

¶15

OP(MAC) NO. 84 OF 2023

¶16

¶17

5 SHIBULAL P. S., S/O. KRISHNAN P, RESIDING AT PUTHANPURAKKAL HOUSE, VALLATHAIPARA P. O., ALLY KUMARANALLUR, MUKKAM , KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673602.

¶18

6 VIJAYAN T. K., S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 53, THUMBALACHALIL HOUSE, KAITHAPOYIL P. O., KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673586.

¶19

7 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DO-III,DOOR NO 5/86, 2ND FLOOR , FAIR MONT BUILDING, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673006.

¶20

8 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PH DIVISION, MALAPARAMBA , KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673009.

¶21

9 AJAYAKUMAR P. K., ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER , DISTRIBUTION SUB DIVISION NO-1, ATHANIKKAL, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673005.

¶22

10 SUJITH A., DRAFTSMAN GRADE -I,DISTRIBUTION SECTION D/1, ATHANIKKAL, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673005.

¶23

11 P. SHAJUKUMAR , GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, PWD/KWA, PUTHIYOTHIL HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673019.

¶24

BY ADVS.
 SMT. A. D. DIVYA
 SRI. A. RANJITH NARAYANAN
 SRI. RAJAN P. KALIYATH
 SRI. P. M. JOHNY – SC - KWA
 SMT. A.SIMI
 SRI. SABIN BABU

¶25

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶26

OP(MAC) NO. 84 OF 2023

¶27

¶28

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶29

OP (MAC) No.84 of 2023

¶30

Dated this the 13^th day of September, 2023

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Heard Mr. Arun Babu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Divya A., Learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 4, Ms. A. Simi, Learned Counsel for respondents 5 to 6, Mr. Rajan P. Kaliyath, Learned Counsel for the 7^th respondent and Mr. P. M. Johny, Learned Standing Counsel for the 8^th respondent. None has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 9 and 10.

¶33

The present original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a writ or order for staying all further proceedings in OP (MV) No.332/2020 till the final disposal of Crl. MC No.330/2022 pending before the MACT, Kozhikode against the petitioner.

¶34

The Petitioner was employed as Assistant Engineer with Kerala Water Authority. The charge sheet has been filed by the Medical College Police, Kozhikode under Sections 268, 283 and 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and another accused.

¶35

¶36

OP(MAC) NO. 84 OF 2023

¶37

The facts of the case are that on 06.08.2019 one Ms. Ajitha was traveling along with her daughter Revathy A. Menon in a Scooter bearing registration No.KL-11 AX-8420, a lorry bearing registration No.KL-09-V 2790 dashed against the said scooter and Ms. Ajitha succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. An FIR was registered as Crime No.636/2019 in respect of the said accident at Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC against the driver of the offending lorry. A charge sheet was filed against the driver of the lorry, Mr. Vijayan T. K. under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC before the JFMC, Kunnamangalam and the case is pending as CC No.436/2019 .

¶38

It appears that the District Collector was of the view that the persons responsible for maintaining the road on which the accident took place had failed to discharge their duty and should be held responsible for the accident. In respect of the said direction, further investigation was carried out and supplementary charge sheet was filed against the petitioner by incorporating offences under Section 268,283 and 304(A) of IPC before the JFMC, Kunnamangalam inasmuch as the petitioner was responsible for conducting the repair works after the water pipe

¶39

OP(MAC) NO. 84 OF 2023

¶40

¶41

line was laid down and the road was damaged. It appears that the repair work was not carried out properly and the pit developed subsequently which contributed causing the accident.

¶42

The 1^st respondent originally filed OP (MV) No.332/2020. The petitioner was not party respondent in the said original petition. But due to the supplementary charge sheet, which is called “B charge”, the petitioner and other respondents have been impleaded. The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 482 in Crl. MC. No.330/2022 for quashing the supplementary charge sheet i.e. “B charge” and this Court has stayed further proceedings in pursuance to the “B charge” against the petitioner vide the order dated 17.01.2022.

¶43

Learned Counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that, since further proceedings in pursuance to “B charge” has been stayed by this Court, the proceedings in OP (MV) 332/2020 so far as the petitioner is concerned should also be kept in abeyance.

¶44

On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the claimant respondents and the Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the criminal proceedings and the proceedings before the MACT are different. The question of negligence has to be

¶45

OP(MAC) NO. 84 OF 2023

¶46

¶47

considered in the proceedings pending before the MACT whereas to hold a person guilty for an offence, the charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Counsel for the respondents have therefore submitted that the scope and ambit of two proceedings are totally different and the proceedings in OP (MV) No.332/2020 cannot be stayed merely on the ground that the criminal proceedings have been stayed by this Court in vide the interim order passed in Crl. MC. No.330/2022 filed by the petitioner under Section 482.

¶48

Having considered the submissions and perused the records in the original petition, while deciding the OP (MV) No.332/2020 pending before the MACT, the claimants are required to adduce evidence regarding their claim and negligent driving of the lorry driver and regarding pipe pit etc. There might be some contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner which has resulted in the accident. But whether the act of the petitioner would amount to contributory negligence or not for the accident has to be considered to by the MACT on the basis of evidence adduced in the proceedings. I am in agreement with the contentions of the Learned Counsel for the respondents that the scope of criminal proceedings and proceedings for determining

¶49

OP(MAC) NO. 84 OF 2023

¶50

¶51

the compensation by the MACT are different. In criminal cases the charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas awarding compensation by the MACT on a claim petition, the Tribunal has to come to the conclusion regarding the factum of accident and the negligence of the driver or the other persons which has contributed in causing the accident. Considering the aforesaid facts I do not find any substance in the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and therefore this original petition is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is further directed to take all the pleas which are available to him before the MACT.

¶52

Sd/DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶53

Svn

¶54

OP(MAC) NO. 84 OF 2023

¶55

¶56

APPENDIX OF OP (MAC) 84/2023

¶57

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶58

EXHIBIT P1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
25/11/2019 IN OP (MV) 332/2020 PENDING
BEFORE THE MACT KOZHIKODE

¶59

EXHIBIT P1(A)THE TRUE READABLE COPY OF EXHIBIT P1
EXHIBIT P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
17/01/2022 IN CRL MC 330/2022 OF THIS
HONBLE COURT

Binoj Kumar K.T v. Anoob.K.C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binoj Kumar K.T v. Anoob.K.C

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

M.N.Vinitha, Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Malini, Vs the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds), *(Corrected)

Vinod.v, Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer

Madhu Vs the District Collector

Girish G Krishnan, Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)