Kerala High Court
Savad Mon vs Faizal on 16 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942
OP (MAC).No.65 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1558/2012 DATED 07-01-2020 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
SAVAD MON, AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. HAMSA, EZHUKUDIKKAL HOUSE,
PONNANI, MALAPPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 FAIZAL
S/O. PAREEKOCHU, KEEZHEDATH HOUSE,
ERATTUPETTA, KANJIRAPPILLY.
2 MUSTHARI
S/O. IBRAHIMKUTTY, POOLAKKAL HOUSE,
PONNANI P. O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3 SIRAJUDHEEN
S/O. ASEES, AREEPARAMBIL HOUSE,
THRIKKANNAPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
4 NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
PERINCHERY BUILDING,
ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR.
OTHER PRESENT:
SC,SRI.A.A ZIYAD RAHMAN
THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P(MAC).65/2020
2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner herein is the claimant in O.P(MV).No.1558 of 2012 of
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. Application was filed under
S.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation. It is seen that,
in the column of his monthly income, it was mentioned as Rs.6,000/-. He
sought for a correction of that by filing Ext.P1 application, which was
dismissed by the Tribunal by Ext.P2 order. This is under challenge in this
original petition.
2. Court below, relying on the objection of the insurance
company held that, attempt was to reduce the income and to bring the
claim within the purview of S.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was held
that, though he claimed that, he was a student and was working as
salesman in a shoproom, he was receiving only Rs.3,250/- and not
Rs.6,000/- as claimed. The Court noted that, in the connected case filed
by the pillion rider, the income of the claimant who was a student was
shown as Rs.6,000/- but, it was not amended. Court also found that the
application to reduce the income was filed after the petitioner's evidence.
Supporting the order, learned counsel for the insurance company
contended that, there was no illegality in the order worth interference.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner specifically
contended that the Court exceeded its jurisdiction while analyzing the
application.
3. It is true that the application was filed after PW1 was
examined. Justification given by the learned counsel for the petitioner
O.P(MAC).65/2020
herein is that, only at the time of giving evidence as PW1 and when he
was confronted with the entries relating to the salary, he noticed that,
there was a mistake in the original application. Accordingly, application
for amendment was sought. Consequently, it was contended that, in the
said original petition filed by the pillion rider who had also sustained
injury, he had disclosed his salary as Rs.6,000/-. That seems to be an
irrelevant factor since merely because both persons are students and are
employed as part time salesman, it cannot presume that, both must be
receiving the same salary.
4. Having evaluated these facts, I feel that the impugned order
suffers from the above infirmity and the Court should have independently
considered the application on merits and the materials, if any, laid before
it. Having considered this, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order
and to remit the matter for a fresh consideration, on the basis of the
materials on record.
Original petition stands allowed. Impugned order stands set aside
and remanded to the court below for fresh consideration of Ext.P1
application, in the light of what is stated above. Both sides shall appear
before the MACT on 15.03.2021. Court below shall dispose of the matter
as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month
from the date of appearance.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
Sbna JUDGE
O.P(MAC).65/2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE
PETITION, I.A.NO.7385/2019.
EXHIBIT P2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
07.01.2020 IN I.A.NO.7385/2019 IN OP(MV)
1558/2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR.
