IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA No. 848 of 2000(A)
1. MADHAVAN PILLAI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.S.R.T.C. LTD.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :15/12/2006
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
...................................................................................
M.F.A. No. 848 OF 2000
...................................................................................
Dated this the 15th December, 2006
J U D G M E N T
At the time of consideration of the application to condone the delay in
filing the appeal , records were called for from the M.A.C.T. and the case was
posted for hearing the application for condonation of delay as well as the M.F.A.
2. The application for condonation of delay was allowed and the M.F.A.
was heard. The only ground on which the M.A.C.T. dismissed the Original
Petition is that the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. was not made a party. It is stated in
the impugned award that there is no averment in the petition that the accident
happened at the time when the driver was in the regular course of employment
under the first respondent, K.S.R.T.C. It is stated in the claim petition that the
bus was driven by the bus driver in a rash and negligent manner. It is stated in
evidence by P.W.1/claimant that the accident occurred due to the negligence of
the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus. The First Information Report, Scene Mahazar,
charge, report of A.M.V.I, vehicle mahazar and other records were also
produced by the claimant.
M.F.A. No. 848 OF 2000
2
3. The appendix to the award would indicate that no documentary or oral
evidence was adduced before the Tribunal. On a perusal of the records, it is
clear that the appendix to the award is incorrect. There is no requirement that
the claimant should prove that the bus driver was in the regular course of
employment in the K.S.R.T.C. It is clear from the petition as well as evidence
that the driver was under the employment of the K.S.R.T.C. The dismissal of
the claim petition on the ground that the driver was not made a party, is clearly
against the decision of the Division Bench reported in Anuradha Varma vs.
State of Kerala (1993 (2) KLT 777), wherein it was held that an application
without impleading the driver is maintainable. Therefore, the award passed by
the M.A.C.T. is set aside. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal shall dispose of
the application on the merits. The parties shall appear before the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal on 15.01.2007. The Registry shall send back the
records to the Tribunal.
M.F.A. is allowed of as above.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
………………………………………………..
M.F.A. No. 848 OF 2000
…………………………………………………
Dated this the 15th December, 2006
J U D G M E N T