Sree Meenakshi Service Station vs Sunil on 13 October, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 1349 of 2007()


1. SREE MEENAKSHI SERVICE STATION,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUNIL, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ASHIK.P.A.,PALAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,

3. BALAKRISHNAN,

4. MANAGER,

5. MUTHUVEL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.V.AMARESAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.V.BABY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :13/10/2009

 O R D E R
                       M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                    ...........................................
                   M.A.C.A.NO.1349 OF 2007
                   .............................................
            Dated this the 13th day of October, 2009

                           J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred against the award of the

Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda in OP(MV)No.1823/2001. The

claimant, a passenger in an auto rickshaw, sustained injuries

in a road accident when there was a collision between the

auto rickshaw and a tanker lorry. In the claim petition, the

claimant attributed negligence only on the auto driver, but

the finding of the Tribunal is that the driver of the lorry is

negligent and has directed the owner and the driver of the

lorry to pay compensation. Therefore, it has to be stated

that the court has gone beyond the pleadings to enter into

a finding. There may be cases where the court will be

finding it difficult to arrive at a precise decision. But

even in such contingencies there must be some direction

to amend the petition so that the court can consider it on

the basis of the pleadings. The claimant through out the

petition had attributed negligence only on the auto driver.

But as a witness he may change over and attribute

: 2 :
M.A.C.A.NO.1349 OF 2007

negligence on the lorry driver. But unless it is backed by

pleadings, it is not proper to enter into a finding that lorry

driver was negligent. Further the owner and driver of the

lorry who entered appearance had denied their negligence.

Therefore, I think the matter requires a fresh

consideration at the hands of the Tribunal and therefore, the

award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted

back to the Tribunal with permission to the claimant to

amend the claim petition and permit all the parties to

produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of

their respective contentions and then decide the matter in

accordance with law. I also direct the Tribunal to frame

appropriate issues on the basis of the pleadings available

before the court. The parties are directed to appear

before the Tribunal on 25.11.2009.

Disposed of accordingly.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

cl

: 3 :
M.A.C.A.NO.1349 OF 2007

: 4 :
M.A.C.A.NO.1349 OF 2007