IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 3137 of 2009()
1. JAMES ABRAHAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PRASANTH, S/O. SASI,
... Respondent
2. HARIDAS, S/O. RAVEENDRAN,
3. THE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM
For Respondent :SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :05/04/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
M. A. C. A. No.3137 of 2009
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010
JUDGMENT
Abdul Rehim, J
The first respondent before the Tribunal, who is
the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, is
challenging the award of the Tribunal in this appeal.
The first respondent/claimant sustained injuries in a
motor accident which occurred at 4.30 p.m. on
26/12/04. The claim petition was filed with the
averments that the accident occurred when he was
travelling in the vehicle (jeep) driven by the second
respondent therein and that he was thrown out of the
vehicle due to rash and negligent driving of the second
respondent. On consideration of evidence adduced, the
M. A. C. A. No.3137 of 2009 -2-
Tribunal found that the first respondent/claimant is
entitled to get compensation to the tune of
Rs.2,68,230/-. The said amount was ordered to be
paid along with 7.5% interest per annum and
Rs.5,000/- as cost. The first appellant herein was
directed to make payment of the amount finding that
the third respondent, insurer of the vehicle is not
liable, because the policy in question will not cover
compensation payable to any passengers carried in the
vehicle. The vehicle in question is a private jeep and
the claimant was considered only as a gratuitous
passenger.
2. Sri.Sheji P. Abraham, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant had pointed out that the
version put forth by the first respondent/claimant
before the Tribunal is totally contradictory to the
M. A. C. A. No.3137 of 2009 -3-
version illustrated in the police records. Exts.A1 to A5
are documents marked on behalf of the first
respondent/claimant and it pertains to the criminal
case registered by the police authorities with respect
to the accident. On a perusal of Exts.A1 to A5
documents it is revealed that the entire police case is
proceeded on the basis that the accident occurred
when the jeep in question had hit the claimant, who
was a pedestrian. Therefore, it is pointed out that the
documents produced by the claimant himself will prove
that the claim put forth before the Tribunal is not true
and correct. According to the appellant, since no oral
evidence was adduced before the Tribunal, the
appellant was not in a position to controvert version of
the claimant as illustrated in the claim petition. It is
further contended that, if the accident is occurred as
M. A. C. A. No.3137 of 2009 -4-
enumerated in the Police records, the claimant will be
in the status of a third party and in such case the third
respondent/insurer will be liable for payment of the
compensation. But, on a perusal of copy of the written
statement filed by the appellant before the Tribunal,
we notice that no such contention based on the police
records is seen raised before the Tribunal. At the same
time, we notice that evidence adduced before the
Tribunal through Exts.A1 to A5, marked on behalf of
the claimant, reveals a different version regarding the
accident, which will run contradictory to the version
put forth by the claimant. Inspite of those documents
produced in evidence, the Tribunal has omitted to
notice the contents thereof.
3. Under the above mentioned circumstances,
despite omission on the part of the appellant in raising
M. A. C. A. No.3137 of 2009 -5-
relevant contentions, in our considered view, it is only
just and proper that the matter need consideration
afresh. We feel that it is only just and proper to afford
all the parties in the claim petition to adduce proper
pleadings and evidence before the Tribunal to achieve
ends of justice. Hence, we are proposing to remand
the case for fresh disposal on imposing sufficient
terms and conditions on the appellant to compensate
their latches and with a view to secure interest of the
claimant.
4. In the result, the impugned award of the
Tribunal is hereby set aside on condition of the
appellant/first respondent deposits a sum of
Rs.25,000/- before the Tribunal towards part payment
of the compensation on a provisional basis, within a
period of one month from today. The appellant shall
M. A. C. A. No.3137 of 2009 -6-
also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost to the High Court
Legal Services Committee on or before 09/05/2010
and produce receipt before the Tribunal. On
compliance of the conditions as stipulated above, the
Tribunal shall take up the case and to dispose of the
same afresh after affording opportunity to all the
parties to make necessary amendments in the
pleadings and to adduce evidence in the claim petition.
The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal
on 19/04/2010. The Tribunal shall dispose of the case
at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of
three months from the date of appearance.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
appellant that a sum of Rs.25,000/- has already been
deposited before the Tribunal. If there is any such
payment, the same shall be treated as compliance of
M. A. C. A. No.3137 of 2009 -7-
the conditions stipulated hereinabove and the Tribunal
shall allow the first respondent/claimant to withdraw
the said amount subject to final result of the claim
petition.
6. The appeal is allowed and the case is
remanded as above. No order as to costs of parties.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
C. K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
kns/-