Kerala High Court
Alikunhi vs Abdul Khader on 27 June, 2012
Author: Pius C. Kuriakose
Bench: Pius C.Kuriakose, A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
&
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/6TH ASHADHA 1934
MACA.No. 23 of 2009 ( )
-----------------------
(OPMV 3345/2001 OF M.A.C.T., KOZHIKODE)
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
---------------------
ALIKUNHI, S/O.IMBICHIMAMMU,
MODAMBATH HOUSE, ORAVIL POST, NADUVANNUR-VIA
KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.M.C.ANTONY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------
1. ABDUL KHADER
VARUVIN KALAYIL HOUSE, VALIYAPARAMBA POST, KODUVALLY
KOZHIKODE.
2. K.K.MADHAVAN NAIR
S/O. KELU NAIR, KATTADI KUNNU HOUSE, RAROTH AMSOM
EMBAYATHODE, THAMARASSERY POST, KOZHIKODE.
3. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD
CHEROOTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 27-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
---------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.23 of 2009.
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2012.
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
The appellant, a watchman in an estate, complains that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal unduly dismissed the original petition, which he had filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for injuries, which he sustained in a road traffic accident caused by the negligence of the driver of a lorry which was duly insured with the third respondent insurance company.
2. Before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the appellant got himself examined as PW1 and produced Exts.A1 to A5 series. Ext.A1 was the copy of the First Information Report which was registered by the Police, only 51 days after the accident. Significantly, the final report submitted by the Police after completion of the investigation was not produced by the appellant.
3. We have heard Shri Jose Kuriakose, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company. Shri Jose Kuriakose, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is having a copy of the final report. He, in fact, placed before us a copy of the above final report, which will show that the driver of the lorry, the M.A.C.A No.23 of 2009. -:2:- second respondent was charge sheeted by the Police for offence under Section 279, 338 IPC.
4. The learned Tribunal, however, found that the conduct of the appellant in not reporting the accident to the Police was suspicious. The submission of Mr. Kuriakose before us was that the appellant was taken to a private hospital, who issued Ext.A2 certificate. He submitted that in Ext.A2, it is very clearly stated that the appellant approached the hospital informing them that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. According to him, though he approached the Police, they were not willing to register F.I.R. That is why, the appellant filed a private complaint, which led to the investigation by the Police under Section 156(3). The learned counsel for the appellant requested that the matter be remanded so that the appellant can adduce evidence and substantiate his claims.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent insurance company submitted that, if this Court is inclined to remand the matter then, necessary conditions should be incorporated so as to protect the interest of the insurance company in the matter.
6. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that opportunity can be given to the appellant for adducing further evidence for substantiating the claim subject to the conditions.
M.A.C.A No.23 of 2009. -:3:-
7. Hence, we set aside the impugned award and O.P(MV) No.3345/2001 is remitted back to the the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The learned Tribunal is directed to afford opportunity to the appellant to adduce further evidence (documentary and if necessary, oral also). If further evidence is adduced by the appellant, the contesting respondents should also be permitted to adduce further evidence.
8. The learned Tribunal will pass a revised award on the basis of the evidence already on record and the evidence adduced by the parties pursuant to this remand order. However, there will a condition that in case the appellant becomes eligible for compensation under the revised award, such compensation will not carry any interest during the period from 21/05/2008 till the date of passage of the revised award.
Parties will enter appearance before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 28/07/2012.
sd/-
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE sd/-
A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE krj