Loading...
Responsive image

Sharafudeen vs Najim on 1 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sharafudeen vs Najim on 1 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  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

Basheer, J.

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
2

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
3

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

as above.

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
4

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

forthwith.

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

mt/-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information