IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 955 of 2010()
1. LALITHA KUMARI, LAGI NIVAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BALAKRISHNAN, PANIKOTTIL VEEDU,
... Respondent
2. PRADEEP KUMAR, ASARIPARAMBIL VEEDU,
3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent :SRI.JOE KALLIATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :07/12/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
...........................................
M.A.C.A.NO.955 OF 2010
.............................................
Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This is an appeal preferred against the award of the
Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara in O.P.(MV)No.1886/1999. The
claimant sustained injuries in an accident and he has been
awarded a compensation of Rs.61,660/= with 7.5% interest.
The third respondent was directed to pay the amount and
get it reimbursed from the second respondent in the claim
petition, who is the owner, as the driver has driven the
vehicle without valid driving licence. It is challenging the
same, the owner has come up in appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as
the respondents. The case attempted to be projected in the
appeal is that the owner had entrusted the vehicle to a
workshop and somebody from the workshop had driven the
vehicle and that resulted in the accident. It is contended
that there is no authorisation for the driver to drive the
vehicle.
I feel a totally different approach is taken in the appeal
and it is totally against the pleadings in the written
: 2 :
M.A.C.A.NO.955 OF 2010
statement filed before the Tribunal. I had the opportunity to
peruse the written statement filed before the Tribunal.
What is stated therein is that the first respondent did have a
valid driving licence and he had driven the vehicle with due
care and it was on account of the negligence of the claimant,
the accident took place. The second respondent also admits
his ownership over the vehicle and says that it has been
insured with the insurance company. There is absolutely no
whisper regarding entrustment of the vehicle to the
workshop or a case that some unauthorised person had
driven the vehicle in order to cause the accident. No party
can be permitted to travel beyond the pleadings and if such
type of contentions are entertained in the appeal, it will
result in miscarriage of justice and therefore the new
contention attempted to be raised in the Memorandum of
Appeal is really to be deprecated and it shall not be accepted.
When it is so, the finding of the Tribunal makes it very
clear that how the accident took place, who was negligent
and that the driver did not have the valid driving licence.
The Tribunal has granted a recovery right and nothing else.
: 3 :
M.A.C.A.NO.955 OF 2010
It is perfectly justified in law.
Therefore, I do not find any merit in the appeal. So
the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl
: 4 :
M.A.C.A.NO.955 OF 2010
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
…………………………………….
A.S.NO.389 OF 2001
………………………………………
11th day of November, 2010.
J U D G M E N T