Remanded

Arjun v. Benadict

Kerala HC2 Feb 2024MACA/1360/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Tribunal's dismissal of motor accident claims based on a minor discrepancy in the vehicle registration number, noting it was a clerical error not caused by claimants. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of negligence and compensation.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's award dismissing claims was set aside. The matter is remanded to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for fresh consideration of negligence and compensation within six months.

Arjun Vs Benadict — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

MACA.No.1356/12 & 1360/12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945

¶7

MACA NO. 1356 OF 2012

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 1626/2005 OF MOTOR

¶9

ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA

¶10

APPELLANT/APPLICANT:

¶11

SANGEETHA,

¶12

D/O.NITHA, M.T.HUT, PLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VANCHUVAM, ELAVATTOM P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT KADAYARA VEEDU, POTTAYIL, MALAYINKEEZHU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY ADV.SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR

¶14

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 BENADICT, S/O.CHELLAPPAN NADAR, MUKKOLACKAL HOUSE, CHULLIMANOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMPIN - 695 541.

¶16

2 M/S.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.1, ROHINI BUILDINGS,THAKARAPARAMBU JUNCTION, PAZHAVANGADI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ISSUING OFFICE: DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.II, ST.MARY'S VILLA, ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 011.

¶17

3 BIJU, S/O.MANIYAN, PLAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, VANCHUVAM, CHULLIMANOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, PIN - 695 541.

¶18

ADV.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN -R3

¶19

MACA.No.1356/12 & 1360/12

¶20

¶21

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2024, ALONG WITH MACA.1360/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

MACA.No.1356/12 & 1360/12

¶23

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶27

FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945

¶28

MACA NO. 1360 OF 2012

¶29

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 74/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT

¶30

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,NEYYATTINKARA

¶31

APPELLANT/APPLICANT:

¶32

ARJUN,

¶33

S/O.BAIJU, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURALGUARDIAN SANGEETHA, D/O.NITHA, M.T.HUT, PLAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, VANCHUVAM,ELAVATTOM.P.O, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT KADAYARA VEEDU, POTTAYIL, MALAYINKEEZHU.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶34

BY ADV.SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR

¶35

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶36

1 BENADICT, S/O.CHALLAPPAN NADAR, MUKKOLOCKAL HOUSE, CHULLIMANOOR.P.O, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 541.

¶37

2 M/S.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.1, ROHINI BUILDINGS, THAKARAPARAMBU JUNCTION, PAZHAVANGADI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ISSUING OFFICE:DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.II,ST.MARY'S VILLA, ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 011.

¶38

3 BIJU, S/O.MANIYAN, PLAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, VANCHUVAM, CHULLIMANOOR.P.O, NEDUMANGAD, PIN-695 541.

¶39

MACA.No.1356/12 & 1360/12

¶40

¶41

ADV.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN -R3

¶42

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2024, ALONG WITH MACA.1356/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

MACA.No.1356/12 & 1360/12

¶44

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

[MACA Nos.1356/2012, 1360/2012]

¶47

Both these appeals are arising from a common award passed

¶48

in O.P(MV).Nos.74 of 2005 and 1626 of 2005 filed by the respective respondents/claimants seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 25.10.2004. M.A.C.A.No.1360 of 2012 was filed against the award in O.P. (MV).No.74 of 2005, which was filed by minor claimant and M.A.C.A.No.1356 of 2012 was filed against the award in O.P. (MV).No.1626 of 2005 which was filed by the mother of the claimant in O.P.(MV).No.74 of 2005. Both of them sustained injuries when the motorcycle on which they were pillion riding was hit by an autorickshaw driven and owned by the 1^st respondent and was insured with the 2^nd respondent.

¶49

The 2^nd respondent alone contested the matter wherein they admitted the coverage of policy for the auto-rickshaw but disputed the negligence on the part of the driver of the autorickshaw.

¶50

The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A14 from

¶51

the side of the appellant and no evidence was adduced by the

¶52

MACA.No.1356/12 & 1360/12

¶53

¶54

respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal rejected both the claim petitions on the ground that there was some discrepancy in the number of the auto-rickshaw mentioned in the police records. Challenging the said order of dismissal, this appeals are filed.

¶55

Heard Sri.Ayyappan Sankar, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and Smt.Latha Susan Cherian, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent Insurance Company.

¶56

The only question that arises for consideration is whether the dismissal of the claim petitions by the Tribunal was on the proper reasons or not. It is discernible from the award that the dismissal was solely because of the reason that in the police records the number of the auto rickshaw was mentioned as KL-01-Y/1357 whereas the case of the appellants/claimants was to the effect that the vehicle was bearing Reg No KL-01-Y/1351.

¶57

On carefully going by Ext.A2 final report, it can be seen that, in the said record, both the numbers i.e., KL-01-Y/1351 and KL01-Y/1357 are mentioned therein. From a careful reading of the entire materials, it could be understood that, mentioning of both numbers was only a mistake on the part of the police authorities while preparing the final report. The crucial aspect to be noted is

¶58

MACA.No.1356/12 & 1360/12 7

¶59

none of the respondents including the insurer has raised any objection regarding the identity of the said vehicle. On the other hand, in the written statement filed by the 2^nd respondent they admitted the coverage of policy for the said vehicle and their dispute was with respect to the negligence and other aspects. Moreover, vehicle inspection report of the AMVI, which is marked as Exts.A5 also contains the vehicle No.KL-01-Y/1351. In such circumstances, I do not find any justification in dismissing the claim petition on such a minor discrepancy which was not due to the fault of the claimants, whereas the other materials would clearly indicate that it was a mistake in the final report.

¶60

In such circumstances, the award passed by the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition is to be interfered with. However, as the question of negligence and the quantification of compensation were not considered by the Tribunal, it is only proper that the matter be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

¶61

In the result, both these appeals are allowed. The common award passed in O.P.(MV).Nos.74 of 2005 and 1626 of 2005 on 30.06.2011 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for

¶62

MACA.No.1356/12 & 1360/12

¶63

¶64

fresh consideration. The parties shall be at liberty to adduce such further evidence to substantiate their respective contentions, and a reasonable opportunity in this regard shall be provided to them by the Tribunal. Thereupon the issues in connection with the above shall be decided by the Tribunal on appreciating the evidence and an award shall be passed in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 04.03.2024. As this is a claim of the year 2004, every endeavour shall be taken by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara for the expeditious disposal of the claim petition, at any rate the matter shall disposed of within a period of six months from the date of appearance of all the parties before the Tribunal.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶67

DG/5.2.24

Arjun v. Benadict

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun v. Benadict

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

Vinod Vs Sabu Paily

Nazeer Vs China Gownder

Meena @ Beena Vs the Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C

P.K.Riyas [Died] Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Sangeetha Vs Benadict

Mrs.Mallika Vs Ramankutty