Remanded

Ravikumar v. Mohammed Kanjeera Paramban

Kerala HC4 Mar 2024MACA/1575/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order dismissing a compensation claim for failure to prove accident circumstances. It remanded the case for fresh consideration, directing the Tribunal to afford the appellant an opportunity to adduce further evidence including eye witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The award of 10.04.2013 is set aside; matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after parties adduce further evidence.

Ravikumar Vs Mohammed Kanjeera Paramban — Medical Negligence | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶3

MACA NO. 1575 OF 2013

¶4

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.04.2013 IN OPMV NO.397

¶5

OF 2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , MANJERI

¶6

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶7

RAVIKUMAR
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. GOVINDA POTHUVAL, LAKSHMI NIVAS, OORAKAM,
P.O.MELMURI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
SMT.NIMA JACOB

¶9

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1MOHAMMED KANJEERA PARAMBAN
S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY K.P., KANJEERA PARAMBAN HOUSE,
KUTTUR NORTH, THIRURANGADI-676 306, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT. (DRIVER)

¶11

2 MOHAMMED HASSAN S/O. IBRAHIM KUTTY, THAZHETHETIL HOUSE, CHERIYAMUNDAM, TIRUR-676 101, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (OWNER)

¶12

3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, COURT ROAD, MANJERI-676 121. BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY

¶13

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

M.A.C.A. No.1575/2013

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The appellant was the petitioner in OP(MV) No.397/2010 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri.

¶18

The said claim petition was submitted by him seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 16.03.2009. According to him, the accident occurred when he was driving a vehicle, it was hit by an autorickshaw driven by the 1^st respondent. The said autorickshaw was owned by the 2^nd respondent, and it was insured with the 3^rd respondent. The appellant was aged 38 years at the time of the accident and was working as an Auto Consultant. Consequent to the accident, he sustained very serious injuries and it resulted in physical disabilities as well. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances.

¶19

The 2^nd respondent filed a written statement denying the negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent. It was further contended that the vehicle was insured with the 3^rd respondent

¶20

M.A.C.A. No.1575/2013 : 3 :

¶21

and if at all there is any liability, that has to be indemnified by the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent filed a written statement admitting the coverage of policy for the vehicle. However, they contended the veracity of the version of the accident as contended by the appellant. It was pointed out that there was a delay of five months and six days in filing the complaint, in respect of the accident, before the Police. It was contended that, the autorikshaw was never involved in the accident. The quantum of compensation was also disputed by them.

¶22

The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A11. The Medical Board report was marked as Ext.X1. From the side of the respondents Exts.B1 to B10 were marked.

¶23

After the trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove the involvement of the autorickshaw in the accident. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.7,75,937/-. However, since the involvement of the autorikshaw was not properly proved, the claim petition was dismissed. This appeal is submitted by the appellants challenging the award dismissing the claim petition submitted by him.

¶24

M.A.C.A. No.1575/2013

¶25

: 4 :

¶26

Heard Sri. P. Samsudin, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. John Joseph Vettikad, the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶27

The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, the tribunal dismissed the claim petition without any sustainable ground. It was pointed out that, in connection with the incident, the Police registered Ext.A1 F.I.R. and after investigation, they have filed Ext.A11 final report implicating the 1^st respondent as the accused. It was also pointed out that, the 1^st respondent pleaded guilty and was convicted as well. In such circumstances, the tribunal should not have dismissed the application on the ground that the appellant failed to prove the accident in the manner claimed in the claim petition, it was contended.

¶28

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent would point out that merely because of the fact that, the Police submitted a final report implicating the 1^st respondent, that by itself cannot be a reason to assume that the accident occurred in the manner as claimed in the claim petition. The learned counsel highlighted the delay of five months and six

¶29

M.A.C.A. No.1575/2013

¶30

: 5 :

¶31

days in registering the F.I.R. by filing private complaint before the jurisdictional court. It was contended that the tribunal correctly took note of the aforesaid aspect and other suspicious circumstances which led to the incident, and rightly found that the appellant failed to prove the accident and the involvement of the autorickshaw in the said accident. Therefore, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

¶32

I have carefully gone through the records. As far as

¶33

the evidence to substantiate the involvement of the autorickshaw is concerned, the relevant documents are Ext.A1 F.I.R. and A11 final report. The tribunal specifically took note of the fact that there was a huge delay of more than five months in filing the F.I.R. and the investigation was complete within a fortnight after registering the F.I.R. Besides the same, the tribunal also took note of the fact that, the medical records would indicate that, the blood sugar level of the injured at the time of accident was 439 mg. From that aspect, the tribunal assumed that the abnormally high sugar content in the blood of the petitioner must have made the petitioner disoriented, which probably resulted in the petitioner losing control of his vehicle and, accordingly, it went off the road

¶34

M.A.C.A. No.1575/2013

¶35

: 6 :

¶36

and caused the accident without the involvement of the autorickshaw. However, even though the said finding appears to be based only on a assumption and no final conclusion could have been possible merely because of the high blood sugar content of the appellant, the ultimate finding of the tribunal cannot be treated as an improbable one. This is particularly because, despite the fact that, serious injuries were sustained by the appellant, no F.I.R. was registered in time and there is a huge delay of five months in doing the same. The F.I.R. was ultimately registered on the basis of private complaint registered by the wife of the appellant mainly because of the reason that he was undergoing treatment at the relevant point of time. It is to be noted that the appellant was engaged in a profession of auto consultancy, and presumably, he was a person who was acquainted with the procedures relating to motor accident cases. Therefore, the said aspect fortifies to some extent, the case advanced by the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent. Of course it is true that, as evidenced by Ext.P10, the 1^st respondent appeared before the criminal court where Ext.A11 final report was taken cognizance of as CC 1154/2009 and pleaded guilty.

¶37

M.A.C.A. No.1575/2013 : 7 :

¶38

However, merely because of that reason, it cannot be concluded that the conclusions in the final report has to be accepted. Ofcourse in New India Assurance Co.Ltd v, Pazhaniammal [2011 (3) KLT 648], this Court made an observation that, in the absence of any contra evidence, the conclusions arrived at by the Police in the final report could be accepted as a prima facie proof of the accident. However, in Pazhaniammal (supra) itself it was observed by this Court in para 8 that, wherever on the facts of a given case the tribunal feel that the police charge sheet does not satisfy their judicial conscience, the tribunal can record that the charge sheet cannot be accepted and call upon the parties, at any stage, to adduce oral evidence of the accident and the alleged negligence. In such a case, the issue of negligence must be decided on the other evidence, ignoring the charge sheet.

¶39

In this case, even though the tribunal found that the charge sheet submitted by the Police is not acceptable, the appellant was not called upon to adduce any oral evidence in this regard. Therefore, even though I find that the evidence now available on record are not sufficient to hold that, the injuries sustained by the appellant were in an accident involving the

¶40

M.A.C.A. No.1575/2013 : 8 :

¶41

autorickshaw insured with the 3^rd respondent, I am of the view that, a reasonable opportunity should have been given to the appellant to adduce evidence to establish the same. This is particularly because, in Ext.B2 private complaint submitted by the appellant before the jurisdictional court, on the basis of which the crime was registered, they have cited eye witnesses. However, none of the said persons were examined before the tribunal to establish the accident. The records would clearly indicate that the appellant sustained, very serious injuries and the said injuries were caused due to a road traffic accident. Therefore, the question that remains to be considered is whether the autorickshaw insured with the 3^rd respondent was involved in the said accident. As of now, the only materials are Exts.A1 F.I.R. and A11 final report submitted by the Police, and this Court has already held that the same by itself is not sufficient to substantiate the contentions of the appellant in this regard as far as the involvement of the autorickshaw is concerned. At the same time, there is ample evidence to show that the he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. The injuries sustained by the appellant are also serious in nature. In such circumstances, I am of the view

¶42

M.A.C.A. No.1575/2013 : 9 :

¶43

that it is only proper in the interest of justice that, the appellant be granted a further opportunity to establish his case by adducing evidence, including the examination of the persons referred by him as eye witnesses or any other persons. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to set aside the award now passed by the tribunal and to remand the matter to the tribunal for fresh consideration. Since the matter is being remanded, the contention raised by the appellant with regard to the quantification of compensation is also not being considered by this court as the said contention can also be raised by the appellant before the tribunal.

¶44

In the result, this appeal is allowed. The award dated 10.04.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in OP(MV) No.397/2010 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the tribunal for fresh consideration. The tribunal shall provide a reasonable opportunity to all the parties concerned to adduce such further evidence as they deem fit and decide all the questions arising in the claim petition after appreciating the materials so adduced by the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 02.04.2024. In case any of the parties are not appearing before the tribunal on the

¶45

M.A.C.A. No.1575/2013

¶46

: 10 :

¶47

date fixed by this Court notice shall be sent to them. Since the claim petition is of the year 2010, every endeavour shall be taken by the tribunal to complete the trial of the case as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within a period of eight months from the date of appearance of all the parties.

¶48

Sd/ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶49

ncd

Ravikumar v. Mohammed Kanjeera Paramban

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravikumar v. Mohammed Kanjeera Paramban

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaju Jose @ Shaju T.J Vs Martin

Nishad @ Muhammad Nishad.C Vs Arun Krishnan R.

M.J.Joseph @ Jose John Vs the Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C.

Abdul Nazar Vs Muhammed Rashik

Devaki Vs Mani

Sajeevan Vs Renjith N.P.