High Court Kerala High Court

Vinod vs Kadeeja Umma on 26 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Vinod vs Kadeeja Umma on 26 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 1407 of 2010()


1. VINOD, AGED 70, S/O.JANAKI AMMA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KADEEJA UMMA, AGED 77 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. PATHUMMA, AGED 60 YEARS,

3. BEEVATHUMMA, AGED 55 YEARS,

4. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 53 YEARS,

5. NABEESA, AGED 47 YEARS,

6. SAINABA, AGED 43 YEARS,

7. GEORGE, AGED 40 YEARS,

8. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.V.SABU

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

 Dated :26/10/2010

 O R D E R
                      M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
                   ...........................................
                    M.A.C.A.NO.1407 OF 2010
                  .............................................
            Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010.

                         J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred against the award of the

Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in OP(MV)No.4050/2003. A claim

petition was filed by the legal representatives of one

Sulaiman who died in a road accident on 7.9.2001. The

Tribunal awarded the legal representatives a compensation of

Rs.77,000/= and directed the third respondent insurance

company to pay the amount and get it reimbursed from the

owner. Reimbursement was ordered on the ground that there

was no proof regarding valid permit to ply the vehicle.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant had made

available before me a copy of the permit which would

indicate that there was valid permit for the vehicle from

6.11.2000 to 5.11.2005. The accident had taken place on

7.9.2001. If really the permit is correct, then one cannot

hold that the vehicle was plying without a valid permit.

Since it is only a copy it cannot be finalised here. Therefore

an opportunity is given to the appellant to produce the

: 2 :
M.A.C.A.NO.1407 OF 2010

authenticated copy so as to satisfy the conscience of the

court regarding validity of the permit. So for that purpose,

the matter is remitted back.

3. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and

the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction

to the appellant herein to produce authenticated copy of the

permit and adduce evidence to satisfy the conscience of the

court regarding existence of valid permit on the date of

accident. Needless to say that the insurance company can

also produce documents in support of their contentions. For

this limited purpose, the matter is remanded and the parties

are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 7.12.2010.

Disposed of accordingly

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

cl

: 3 :
M.A.C.A.NO.1407 OF 2010

M.N. KRISHNAN, J.

…………………………………….
A.S.NO.389 OF 2001
………………………………………
8th day of October, 2010.

J U D G M E N T