Kerala High Court
Manoj vs Venugopalan.C.R on 12 March, 2015
Author: A.Hariprasad
Bench: A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/25TH KARTHIKA, 1938
MACA.No. 1561 of 2015 ()
-------------------------
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 541/2013 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM DATED 12-03-2015
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
--------------------
MANOJ, S/O.MANI,
KANAM KUNNATH HOUSE, VARODE,
AMBALAPARA VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
SRI.RANJIT BABU
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. VENUGOPALAN.C.R., S/O.RAMACHANDRAN,
CHETTIYARKADA HOUSE, CHERAMANGALAM(PO),
MELARKODE, ALATHUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 703.
2. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
SRI VALLI BUILDING COMPLEX,
ANNICODE JUNCTION, CHITTUR BRANCH,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 101.
R2 BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD
SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY
SMT.SMINI JOSE
SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 16-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A. HARIPRASAD, J.
-------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.1561 of 2015
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
Appellant is aggrieved by dismissal of the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. He sustained injuries in a road accident on 11.12.2012 at 7.45 pm. It is his case that he was travelling through a public road from east to west by keeping the southern side of a public road. At that time, a bus came from the opposite direction (ie., from west to east). A motor cycle, ridden by the 1st respondent, came overtaking the bus and dashed on the motor cycle of the appellant. In the accident, he sustained injuries. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition finding that as per Ext.A1 FIR with FIS and Ext.A3 copy of the charge, the appellant is also responsible for the accident as both the riders were implicated by the Police for offences under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. It is also seen that the appellant had no driving licence at the time MACA 1561/2015 2 of accident.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact the 1st respondent was solely responsible for the accident. It has come out in evidence through investigation that the 1st respondent came overtaking a bus and dashed on the appellant's vehicle at the extreme wrong side of the road. However, the fact that both the riders have been charged for causing the accident is not disputed. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, trial of the criminal case is not over. That apart, he could have adduced evidence before the Tribunal to show that he was not responsible for the accident. That opportunity was denied to him, is the other contention.
4. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, I am of the view that the appellant should be allowed to adduce evidence to show that he was not responsible for the accident. The question of appellant riding a motor cycle without a MACA 1561/2015 3 licence also will have to be considered by the Tribunal. For the said reasons, I am of the view that dismissal of the claim petition at the threshold was not proper.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam for fresh consideration on merits. Parties shall be allowed to adduce evidence to establish their respective contentions. They shall appear before the Tribunal on 5.12.2016.
SD/-
A. HARIPRASAD
JV JUDGE