Kerala High Court
Salahudeen vs Devadas(Died) on 9 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943
MACA.No.1392 OF 2012
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1824/2004 DATED 12-06-2012 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ATTINGAL
APPELLANT/APPLICANT:
SALAHUDEEN
S/O.ISMAIL,PALACHIRA.P.O,VARKALA,CHERINNIYOOR
VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.LALJI P.THOMAS
SRI.LALJI P.THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 DEVADAS(DIED)
S/O.KUNJURAMAN,BEENA NIVAS,MELVETTOOR.P.O,VARKALA.
2 BHADRAN
S/O.BAHULEYAN,ASWATHI BHAVAN,MELVATTOOR,VARAKALA,
PIN-695141.
3 THE BRANCH MANAGER
M/S.NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEAR
MUNICIPAL BUS STAND,MAIN ROAD,ATTINGAL-695101.
4 P.RATNAKUMAR (DIED)
S/O PURUSHOTHAMAN,ASHA BHAVAN,PALACHIRA,VARKALA.
5 SURESH BABU
S/O.DINESH BABU,KATTUVILAKATHU VEEDU,AYANTHI,VARKALA-
PIN-695141.
6 VIMALAVATHY
W/O.DEVADAS,BEENA NIVAS,MELVETTOOR.P.O,VARKALA,
PIN-695312.
7 BEENA
D/O.DEVADAS,BEENA NIVAS,MELVETTOOR.P.O,VARAKALA,
PIN-695312.
M.A.C.A.No. 1392 of 2012, Cross Objection No.66/2012 &
O.P.(MAC) No.3263/2013
2
8 BINI
D/O.DEVADAS,BEENA NIVAS,MELVETTOOR.P.O,
VARKALA,PIN-695312.
9 BAIJU
S/O.DEVADAS,BEENA NIVAS,MELVETTOOR.P.O,
VARKALA,PIN-695312.
10 LATHIKA DEVI
W/O.RATNAKUMAR,ASHA BHAVAN,PALACHIRA,
VARKALA,PIN-695143.
11 ASHA
D/O.RATNAKUMAR,ASHA BHAVAN,PALACHIRA,
VARKALA,PIN-695143.
12 ANU
D/O.RATNAKUMAR,ASHA BHAVAN,PALACHIRA,VARKALA,PIN-
695143.
13 SULOCHANA
M/O.RATNAKUMAR,ASHA BHAVAN,PALACHIRA,
VARKALA,PIN-695143.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN SR.
R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
R1 BY ADV. SMT.D.P.RENU
R1 BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF
R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN
R1, R10 BY ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.)
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.LAL.K.JOSEPH, SC, SMT.D.P.RENU FOR R2
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09-04-2021, ALONG WITH CO.66/2012, OP (MAC).3263/2013(O), THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No. 1392 of 2012, Cross Objection No.66/2012 &
O.P.(MAC) No.3263/2013
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943
CO.No.66 OF 2012 IN MACA. 1392/2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN O.P.(MV) NO. 1824/2004 OF THE MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTRINGAL
APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS 10 T0 13.:
1 LATHIKA DEVI
W/O.RATNAKUMAR,ASHA BHAVAN,PALACHIRA,
VARKALA, PIN-695143.
2 ASHA
D/O.RATNAKUMAR,ASHA BHAVAN,PALACHIRA,VARKALA,
PIN-695143.
3 ANU
D/O.RATNAKUMAR,ASHA BHAVAN,PALACHIRA,VARKALA,
PIN-695143.
4 SULOCHANA
M/O.RATNAKUMAR,ASHA BHAVAN,PALACHIRA,VARKALA,
PIN-695143.
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.)
SMT.D.P.RENU
RESPONDENTS-APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 9:
1 SALAHUDEEN
S/O.ISMAIL, UAZHAVILA VEEDU,
PALACHIRA.P.O,VARKALA,CHERINNIYOOR
VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 695 141.
2 DEVADAS DIED
S/O.KUNJURAMAN,BEENA NIVAS,MELVETTOOR.P.O,
VARKALA. PIN- 695 141.
M.A.C.A.No. 1392 of 2012, Cross Objection No.66/2012 &
O.P.(MAC) No.3263/2013
4
3 BHADRAN
S/O.BAHULEYAN,ASWATHI BHAVAN,MELVATTOOR,VARAKALA,
PIN-695141.
4 THE BRANCH MANAGER
M/S.NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEAR
MUNICIPAL BUS STAND,MAIN ROAD,ATTINGAL-695101.
5 P.RATNAKUMAR DIED
S/O PURUSHOTHAMAN,ASHA BHAVAN,PALACHIRA, VARKALA.
PIN- 695 141.
6 SURESH BABU
S/O.DINESH BABU,KATTUVILAKATHU VEEDU,AYANTHI,
VARKALA-695312.
7 VIMALAVATHY
W/O.DEVADAS,BEENA NIVAS,MELVETTOOR.P.O,VARKALA, PIN-
695312.
8 BEENA
D/O.DEVADAS,BEENA NIVAS,MELVETTOOR.P.O,VARAKALA, PIN-
695312.
9 BINI
D/O.DEVADAS,BEENA NIVAS,MELVETTOOR.P.O,VARKALA, PIN-
695312.
10 BAIJU
S/O.DEVADAS,BEENA NIVAS,MELVETTOOR.P.O,VARKALA, PIN-
695312.
THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09-04-2021, ALONG WITH MACA.1392/2012, OP (MAC).3263/2013(O), THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No. 1392 of 2012, Cross Objection No.66/2012 &
O.P.(MAC) No.3263/2013
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943
OP (MAC).No.3263 OF 2013(O)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 691/2004 DATED 16-06-2012 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ATTINGAL
PETITIONER/:
LATHIKA DEVI
W/O LATE RATNAKUMAR, ASHA BHAVAN, PALACHIRA, VARKALA
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.)
SMT.D.P.RENU
RESPONDENTS:
1 SALAHUDEEN
S/O ISMAIL, UAZHAVILA VEEDU, PALACHIRA P.O, VARKALA,
CHERINNIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
PIN-695143
2 BHADRAN
S/O BAHULEYAN, ASWATHI BHAVAN, MELVATOOR, VARKALA
PIN-695312
3 SURESH BABU
S/O DINESH BABU, KATTUVILAKATHU VEEDU, AYANTHI
VARKALA PIN-695314
4 VIMALAVATHY
W/O DEVADAS, BEENA NIVAS, MELVETTOOR P.O, VARKALA,
PIN-695312
5 BEENA
D/O DEVADAS, BEENA NIVAS, MELVETTOR P.O, VARKALA,
PIN-695312
M.A.C.A.No. 1392 of 2012, Cross Objection No.66/2012 &
O.P.(MAC) No.3263/2013
6
6 BINI
D/O DEVADAS, BEENA NIVAS, MELVETTOR P.O, VARKALA,
PIN-695312
7 BAIJU
S/O DEVADAS, BEENA NIVAS, MELVETTOR P.O, VARKALA,
PIN-695312
8 THE BRANCH MANAGER
M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY, NEAR MUNICIPAL BUS
STRAND, MAIN ROAD, ATTINGAL, PIN-695101
R1 BY ADV. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.K.MOHAMED ALI
R1 BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF
R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN
THIS OP (MAC) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-04-2021, ALONG
WITH CO.66/2012, MACA.1392/2012, THE COURT ON THE DAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No. 1392 of 2012, Cross Objection No.66/2012 &
O.P.(MAC) No.3263/2013
7
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No. 1392 of 2012,
Cross Objection No.66/2012 &
O.P.(MAC) No.3263/2013
-------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2021
JUDGMENT
All these cases are connected and therefore, I am
disposing these cases by a common judgment.
M.A.C.A.No.1392/2012 is filed by the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.
1824/04 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Attingal. The legal heirs of fourth respondent before the
Tribunal filed Cross Objection No.66/2012. O.P.(MAC)
No.3263/2013 is filed by the first petitioner in Cross Objection
No. 66/2012 challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the Tribunal.
(Hereinafter, the parties are mentioned in accordance to their
M.A.C.A.No. 1392 of 2012, Cross Objection No.66/2012 &
O.P.(MAC) No.3263/2013
rank before the Tribunal in O.P.(MV) No.1824/2004).
2. The case of the petitioner is like this: He is a person
aged 75 years. He was a pedestrian walking through
Kallambalam-Varkala public road, and when he reached a
place Orukkini petrol pump, Palachira, a motorcycle bearing
registration No. KL-01/S-3489 ridden by the second respondent
with excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner hit
against another motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-01/N-
9921 ridden by the fifth respondent resulting in the death of
the fourth respondent, pillion rider of the motorcycle bearing
registration No. KL-01/N-9921. It is the further case of the
petitioner that, the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-
01/N-9921 after being hit by the other motor cycle bearing
registration No.KL-01/S-3489 hit against the petitioner-
claimant by its handle bar resulting the petitioner claimant
being thrown off, sustaining grievous bodily injuries, including
fracture of both bones of his right leg below the knee. The first
respondent (Devadas) is the registered owner of the
M.A.C.A.No. 1392 of 2012, Cross Objection No.66/2012 &
O.P.(MAC) No.3263/2013
motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-01/S-3489 and he died
during the pendency of the petition. Hence, his widow and
children were impleaded as additional respondents Nos.6 to
9. The fourth respondent, the registered owner of the
motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-01/N-9921 died on
12.2.2004 and his widow, mother and two children were
impleaded as additional respondents Nos.10 to 13 before the
Tribunal.
3. The third respondent insurance company resisted the
claim petition invoking Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
According to the third respondent, the petitioner/claimant has
no cause of action against the third respondent insurance
company in as much as the motorcycle bearing registration
No.KL-01/S-3489 is not involved in the accident. One
Ratnakumar (R4) who was riding the motorcycle bearing
registration No. KL-01/N-9921 along the Kallambalam-Varkala
public road knocked down him causing grievous bodily injuries
to him. No other vehicle is involved in the accident and the
M.A.C.A.No. 1392 of 2012, Cross Objection No.66/2012 &
O.P.(MAC) No.3263/2013
petitioner/claimant colluded with the relatives of the deceased
Ratnakumar had concocted a false case influencing the police
with malafide intention to extract money from the third
respondent. This is the sum and substance of the contention
of the third respondent.
4. According to the third respondent, the claim petition
was filed by the petitioner at the instance of respondent Nos.
1 and 2 who also colluded with the police. The deceased
Ratnakumar was not having an effective and valid driving
licence to ride the motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-01/N-
9921 and the fifth respondent Sureshbabu is none other than a
close relative of Ratnakumar and he has been arrayed as one
of the respondent to sustain a false case against third
respondent Insurance company and the above Sureshbabu can
be seen to have sustained no injury in the accident. It is also
contended that there is no statement in the FIR suggesting the
involvement of any vehicle other than motorcycle bearing
registration No. KL-01/N-9921. Other contentions are also
M.A.C.A.No. 1392 of 2012, Cross Objection No.66/2012 &
O.P.(MAC) No.3263/2013
raised by the third respondent.
5. To substantiate the case, Exts.A1 to A18 were
marked. Exts.B1 to B21 were marked on the side of the
respondents. One witness was examined on the side of the
respondents also. After going through the evidence and
documents, the Tribunal found that the case of the petitioner-
claimant is without any merit and therefore the claim petition
itself was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same,
M.A.C.A.No.1392/2012 is filed by the petitioner.
6. Respondents Nos.10 to 13 who are the legal heirs of
deceased fourth respondent (Ratnakumar) filed Cross
Objection No.66/2012 in the above appeal. They filed a
separate claim petition claiming compensation as O.P.(MV)
No.691/04 before the claims Tribunal. The above claim petition
was not proceeded by the Tribunal because of the impugned
order in this appeal. Therefore, the respondent No.10 in O.P.
(MV) No.1824/2004 filed a separate O.P.(MAC) No.3263/2013
against the order dated 16.6.2012 in O.P.(MV) No.691/2004 of
M.A.C.A.No. 1392 of 2012, Cross Objection No.66/2012 &
O.P.(MAC) No.3263/2013
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal by which the
Tribunal refused to proceed with the claim petition in the light
of the award dated 12.6.2012 in O.P.(MV) No.1824/2004.
7. Heard the counsel for the petitioner/appellant and the
counsel for the respondents.
8. The counsel for the petitioners argued the case in
detail on merit and submitted that the order passed by the
Tribunal dismissing the claim petition is illegal. The counsel for
the third respondent submitted that it is a false case filed by
the petitioner before the Tribunal to grab compensation from
the Insurance company. The counsel submitted that the other
private respondents in the claim petition are close relatives of
the petitioner. The counsel for the respondents Nos.10 to 13
submitted that the Tribunal ought to have consider O.P.(MV)
No.1824/2004 along with O.P.(MV) No.691/2004.
9. It is an admitted fact that O.P.(MV) No.1824/04 and
O.P.(MV) No.691/04 are connected and the accident referred in
both the claim petitions are one and the same. The Tribunal
M.A.C.A.No. 1392 of 2012, Cross Objection No.66/2012 &
O.P.(MAC) No.3263/2013
disposed O.P.(MV) No.1824/2004 mainly because there is a
direction from this Court to dispose that claim petition. The
finding of the Tribunal in the impugned Award is extracted
hereunder:
"6. Point No.1:- Septuagenarian petitioner-
claimant has filed the claim petition on hand as early as
in the year 2004 and having not been able to have the
petition disposed of for a period of more than 7 years,
the petitioner-claimant was anxious to have the claim
petition disposed of as early as possible; indeed as part
of his attempt to have the claim petition disposed of as
early as possible is seen to have filed I.A.3246/2011
before the Tribunal praying for expeditious disposal of the
petition by the Tribunal. The petitioner-claimant on one
hand moved I.A.3246/2011 before the Tribunal and on
the other he is seen to have moved a writ Petition O.P.
(M.A.C.)No.4335/2011(O) before the Hon'ble High Court
praying for an order directing the Tribunal to consider the
claim petition filed by him for a time bound disposal. It is
seen that the Hon'ble High Court passed 3 orders
prescribing a time limit for disposal of the claim petition
and extending the time, whereof the claim petition (O.P.
(M.V.)1824/2004) filed by the petitioner-claimant is now
to be disposed of by the Tribunal in compliance with the
orders of the Hon'ble High Court within two months from
2.4.2012. It would have been much easier to dispose of
the claim petition filed by the petitioner-claimant indeed
earlier than the date prescribed by the Hon'ble High
Court, but the subject matter of the claim petition (O.P.
(M.V.)1824/2004) became rather procedurally
complicated, because another claim petition, O.P.
(M.V.)691/2004 was proposed to be tried with the claim
petition filed by the petitioner-claimant, indeed my
learned predecessor having ordered joint trial of the two
claim petitions, O.P.(M.V.)691/2004 and O.P.
(M.V.)1824/2004 vide order in I.A.2417/2008 dated
M.A.C.A.No. 1392 of 2012, Cross Objection No.66/2012 &
O.P.(MAC) No.3263/2013
7.8.2004. The Tribunal found that the subject-matters of
the two petitions, O.P.(M.V.)691/2004 and O.P.
(M.V.)1824/2004 although were cited to have arisen out
of one and the same accident, yet the two petitions were
found capable of being tried separately without
prejudicing the interest of either of the two parties in the
above two claim petition, indeed complying with the
order of the Hon'ble High Court O.P.
(M.A.C.)No.4335/2011(O) dated 27.4.2012, whereof the
Tribunal has been directed to dispose of the claim petition
on hand O.P.(M.V.)1824/2004 within two months from
2.4.2012. The Tribunal indeed to give an expeditious
disposal to O.P.(M.V.)1824/2004 compliance with the
order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 6.1.2012 and
6.4.2012, split up the joint trial of the two claim
petitions, O.P.(M.V.)691/2004 and O.P.(M.V.)1824/2004
passing a speaking order reviewing the earlier order in
I.A.2417/2008 dated 16.04.2012, affording an
opportunity to both parties to appeal against the order if
they were aggrieved at the order of the Tribunal splitting
up joint trial of the two claim petitions, O.P.
(M.V.)691/2004 and O.P.(M.V.)1824/2004. However,
neither side is seen to have appealed against the order
reviewing the earlier order in I.A.2417/2008 dated
7.8.2008, whereof the joint trial ordered by my learned
predecessor was reviewed splitting up the trial of the two
claim petitions so as to enable the Tribunal to dispose of
O.P.(M.V.)1824/2004 filed by the petitioner-claimant,
rather in a time bound manner as directed by the Hon'ble
High Court. It was only after assuring itself, that, neither
of the parties were insistent to have the two claim
petitions O.P.(M.V.)691/2004 and O.P.(M.V.)1824/2004
jointly tried that the Tribunal proceeded with separate
trial of O.P.(M.V.)1824/2004 filed by the petitioner-
claimant."
10. I cannot agree with the above finding of the Tribunal
that simply because there is a direction from this Court, the
M.A.C.A.No. 1392 of 2012, Cross Objection No.66/2012 &
O.P.(MAC) No.3263/2013
Tribunal ought to have considered that claim petition alone
without considering the other connected claim petition which
arise out of the same accident. Therefore, According to me,
the impugned award can be set aside without going into the
merit of the case. There can be a direction to the Tribunal to
consider O.P.(MV)No.1824/04 along with O.P.(MV)
No.691/2004 and dispose both the claim petitions as
expeditiously as possible. I make it clear that, I have not
considered the case on merit. The Tribunal is free to decide the
matter untrammeled by any observation in this judgment. I
am setting aside the impugned award only for the reason that
the connected claim petition is pending before the Tribunal. In
the light of the above order, O.P.(MAC) No.3263/2013 became
infructuous because the impugned order in this case will not
stand in the light of the judgment in the appeal. Therefore,
these cases are disposed of in the following manner:
(i) M.A.C.A.No.1392/2012 and Cross Objection
No.66/2012 are allowed. The award dated 12.6.2012 in O.P.
M.A.C.A.No. 1392 of 2012, Cross Objection No.66/2012 &
O.P.(MAC) No.3263/2013
(MV) No.1824/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Attingal is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to
restore the above claim petition.
(ii) O.P.(MAC)No.3263/2013 is dismissed as infructuous in
the light of the judgment in M.A.C.A. No.1392/2012. Ext.P1
order will not stand in the light of the judgment in the appeal.
(iii) The parties will appear before the Tribunal on
17.5.2021. The Tribunal will dispose the claim petitions as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
al/-+.
M.A.C.A.No. 1392 of 2012, Cross Objection No.66/2012 &
O.P.(MAC) No.3263/2013
APPENDIX OF OP (MAC) 3263/2013
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OP(MV) 691/200
DATED 16-06-2013 OF THE MACT ATTINGAL
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN IP(MV) 1824/2004
DATED 12-06-2012 OF THE MACT ATTINGAL
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CROSS OBJECTION NO 66/2012
FILED BY THE PETITIONER 03-09-2012 BEFORE
THIS HONOURABLE COURT
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
TRUE COPY
P.S TO JUDGE
AL/-
