S.Mohanan vs Ammini Amma

Kerala High Court

S.Mohanan vs Ammini Amma on 20 May, 2024

Author: Mary Joseph

Bench: Mary Joseph

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
        MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
                        MACA NO. 624 OF 2014
 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 01.08.2013 IN OP(MV) NO.1244 OF 2008 OF
           MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

            S.MOHANAN,
            S/O SREEDAHRAN, CHANNAMALA, KOLATTEL VEEDU,
            VALLAMKULAM EAST P.O, NELLAD, THIRUVALALA- 689 541

            BY ADV.
                 SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3:

    1       AMMINI AMMA,
            AGED 65 YEARS,
            MANNUMPURATH VEEDU, VALLAMKULAM WEST P.O, THIRUVALLA
            PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 541

    2       SUDHEER,
            KALARICKAL VEEDU, KODANTHURUTHU P.O, CHERTHALA,
            ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 524

    3       K.R. MURALEEDHARAN,
            S/O RAGHAVAN, POIKAMANNIL VEEDU,
            VALLAMKULAM EAST P.O, NELLADU, THIRUVALALA 689 541

            BY ADVS.
                 SRI.SIBI THOMAS JACOB


     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 27.02.2024, THE COURT ON 20.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 M.A.C.A. No.624 of 2014           2




                          MARY JOSEPH, J.
                 -----------------------
                      M.A.C.A. No.624 of 2014
                 -----------------------
                 Dated this the 20th day of May, 2024


                            JUDGMENT

Award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta (for short, 'the Tribunal') on 01.08.2013 in O.P(M.V) No. 1244/2008 is under challenge in the appeal on hand. The appellant was the 2nd respondent in the above Original Petition filed by the 1st respondent before the Tribunal seeking a sum of `75,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident occurred on 27.07.2008. The vehicle involved in the motor accident was a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL 4F 4820, driven by the 3 rd respondent herein. The above Original Petition was filed by the 1 st respondent contending that the motor accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the 3 rd respondent and that she is entitled to get `75,000/- as compensation from the registered owner, the transferee and the driver of the motorcycle, M.A.C.A. No.624 of 2014 3 who were respectively arrayed in the Original Petition as respondents 1 to 3.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 in accordance with their status before the Tribunal.

3. 2nd respondent entered appearance on service of notice from the Tribunal. Respondents 1 and 3 failed to appear despite service of notice from the Tribunal and therefore, were declared as ex parte. 2nd respondent in his written statement contended that he is neither the owner nor the possessor of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL 4F 4820 at the relevant time of the motor accident, that the 1 st respondent was it's real owner and he only helped the 1st respondent to get the vehicle released in his favour from Police custody after the motor accident by executing a bond. The petitioner had averred in the Original Petition that the offending motorcycle was not insured at the relevant time of the motor accident.

4. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked by the petitioner in evidence. The contesting 2nd respondent did not adduce any M.A.C.A. No.624 of 2014 4 evidence. The Tribunal found the petitioner entitled to get compensation and arrived at a sum of `51,460/-. The Tribunal also found on a scrutiny of the materials available that the 2 nd respondent was vicariously liable for the negligence of the 3 rd respondent and thereby, dismissed the Original Petition as against the 1st respondent. Accordingly, the Tribunal made respondents 2 and 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation arrived at in favour of the petitioner alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realisation and cost of `4,400/-. It directed the 2 nd respondent to deposit the compensation with interest and costs within 30 days from the date of passing of the award.

5. Aggrieved 2nd respondent has preferred the appeal on hand. According to him, he was arrayed in the Original Petition only as the owner in possession of the vehicle. According to him, he had taken a specific contention in the written statement filed before the Tribunal that the 1st respondent was the owner of the vehicle and that he only assisted him to get the vehicle released from police custody after the motor accident, by M.A.C.A. No.624 of 2014 5 executing a bond. According to him, the 1 st respondent though served with notice failed to appear and contest the Original Petition.

6. Admittedly there was no policy for the motorcycle at the relevant time of the motor accident. The Tribunal also found that the 2nd respondent had taken the vehicle from the Police station after executing a bond. The Tribunal found that respondent No.3 was chargesheeted for offences under Section 146 r/w Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent who was in actual possession of the vehicle was made liable to compensate the petitioner.

7. It is pertinent to note that from the certificate of registration of the motorcycle referred to above that it stands in the name of the 1st respondent. 1st respondent did not turn up to contest the Original Petition despite service of notice from the Tribunal. Therefore, the contentions of the 2 nd respondent that he was only possessor of the motorcycle involved in the motor accident and helped the 1st respondent in getting the vehicle released from the custody of the police were not controverted.

8. For the sole reason that the vehicle was taken M.A.C.A. No.624 of 2014 6 from custody by the 2nd respondent, he cannot be treated as the owner of the vehicle. Vicarious liability can only be fastened on the person whose name finds a place in the certificate of registration of the vehicle as it's registered owner. Having found the 1st respondent as the registered owner of the vehicle, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed vicarious liability for the negligent act of the 3rd respondent on the 2nd respondent. It is found that the Tribunal erroneously fixed vicarious liability on the 2nd respondent and made him liable to pay the compensation arrived at in favour of the petitioner. The liability fixed by the Tribunal on the 2nd respondent is only to be set aside and the same is liable to be imposed on the 1st respondent.

9. Appeal succeeds for the reason and is allowed. The impugned award to the extent it dismissed the Original Petition as against the 1st respondent and fixed liability on the 2 nd respondent to pay the compensation arrived at with interest and costs in favour of the petitioner is set aside. The Original Petition as against the 1st respondent is allowed and liability is fixed on him to pay the compensation with interest and costs in favour of the petitioner. 1st respondent is thus directed to pay the M.A.C.A. No.624 of 2014 7 compensation with interest and costs as ordered by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date on which a certified copy of this judgment is received.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE JJ