IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MACA.No. 1923 of 2008() 1. SHARAFUDEEN, PUTHENKANDIYIL VEEDU, ... Petitioner Vs 1. NAJIM, PADINJATTIN VEEDU, ... Respondent 2. FAZILUDEEN, S/O MOHAMMED RASHEED, 3. M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.HABEEB For Respondent :SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI Dated :01/10/2010 O R D E R A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 1923 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: OCTOBER 1, 2010 JUDGMENT
Appellant is stated to be the registered owner of an Ambassador
car bearing Regn.No. KRQ 9658. Appellant was arrayed as respondent
No.1 in OP(MV)1645/1992 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Attingal, a claim petition filed by respondent No.1 herein.
2. The claimant sought compensation for the alleged injury
sustained by him in the accident involving the above car, that
allegedly occurred on July 14, 1992. But it appears that in the claim
petition the number of the vehicle was shown as KRQ 6958. The
Tribunal after considering the case of the parties, awarded a sum of
Rs.35,000/- to the claimant with 12% interest. The Tribunal held that
the appellant and his driver (respondent No.2 herein) were liable to
pay the compensation to the claimant since the vehicle referred to in
the claim petition was not covered under an insurance policy.
3. The above award was passed by the Tribunal on February
22, 1996. It appears that in the year 2000 the appellant filed a
petition for review of the above award contending that his vehicle
bearing Regn.No. KRQ 9658 was, in fact, covered under a valid
M.A.C.A. 1923 of 2008
insurance policy issued by respondent No.3, M/s. New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. But the Tribunal dismissed the review petition not only on the
ground of delay, but also since, according to the Tribunal, there was no
error apparent on the face of the award warranting a review. It is
thus that the appellant is before us.
4. Though notice was taken out to respondent No.1/claimant, he
refused to accept the same and it was returned as “unclaimed”.
Respondent No.3/Insurance Company also has not appeared before
this Court even though it was served with notice.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the
specific case of the claimant was that he was knocked down by a car.
However, the number of the vehicle was mistakenly mentioned as KRQ
6958 in the claim petition. Curiously the same wrong number was
mentioned in the police records also. According to the learned counsel
the registered owner of the said vehicle (KRQ 6958) is the Executive
Engineer, Kallada Irrigation Project Left Bank Division No.5, Quilon
and it is, in fact, a goods vehicle. It is further contended by the
learned counsel that on verification of the relevant records of the said
vehicle, it can be seen that the said vehicle was purchased by the
Department in the year 1994.
6. It is the further case of the appellant that the Insurance
M.A.C.A. 1923 of 2008
Company had, in fact, produced the policy certificate in respect of his
vehicle bearing registration No.KRQ 9658. But still the Tribunal
refused to place any reliance on the said certificate since the claimant
had mentioned the number of the offending vehicle as KRQ 6958.
The police records also indicated the number of the offending vehicle
7. The Tribunal held that in the absence of any evidence from
the side of the appellant that his vehicle bearing registration No.KRQ
9658 was, in fact, involved in the accident, no reliance can be placed
on Ext.B1 certificate. The Tribunal therefore held that the appellant
was liable to pay compensation since he did not produce the policy
certificate in respect of KRQ 6958 which, according to the claimant,
was the offending vehicle.
8. We have carefully perused the records relating to the above
case. In fact, on a perusal of Ext.A6 report submitted by the Assistant
Motor Vehicles Inspector, it is seen that the registration number of the
vehicle involved in the accident is KRQ 9658. Further, the specific
case of the claimant was that he was knocked down by a car and not
by a goods vehicle.
9. Therefore the impugned award is set aside. The case is
remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with
M.A.C.A. 1923 of 2008
law. It will be open to the parties to adduce further evidence in the
matter, if so advised. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellant shall appear
before the Tribunal on October 28, 2010.
The Registry shall send back the records to the Tribunal
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE