Sunil vs Ramachandran
2021 Latest Caselaw 10145 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

    THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                          MACA.No.190 OF 2013

   AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 21/2005 DATED 24-08-2012 OF MOTOR
               ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ATTINGAL


APPELLANTS:

               SUNIL
               S/O SATHYDEVAN, RESIDING AT SUNETHRA, CHERUKUNNAM,
               THODUVAYIL, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
               SRI.P.S.APPU
               SRI.A.R.NIMOD

RESPONDENTS:

      1        RAMACHANDRAN
               S/O VELAYUDHAN,
               RESIDING AT JYOTHI,
               VARSHA VILLA, MUNDAYIL,
               VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 141.

      2        SATHEESHKUMAR
               S/O GANGADHARAN PILLAI,
               RESIDING AT RADHAS,
               KILITHATTUMUKKU, VARKALA,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 141.

      3        UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
               ASH-HAR COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, ATTINGAL,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 101.

               R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER
               R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.AKHIL S.VISHNU

OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI.T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER, SC

     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA.No.190 OF 2013

                                 2




                P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
             ===================
                 MACA No.190 OF 2013
             ===================
         Dated this the 25th day of March 2021


                         JUDGMENT

Appellant is the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No.21/2005 on

the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal. It is a

claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act. (Hereinafter the parties are mentioned in

accordance to their rank before the Tribunal).

2. The short facts are like this:-

The petitioner-claimant is aged 22 years. According

to him, he sustained injury in a motor vehicle accident.

He was riding a motor cycle bearing Registration No. KL-

01 V-1514 along Cherukunnam-Thoduvey road, and that,

when he reached a place along the road having a

deviation towards Railway station, a Maruthi Car bearing

Registration No. KL-01/K-4528 driven by the 2 nd MACA.No.190 OF 2013

respondent with excessive speed and in a rash and

negligent manner hit against the motor cycle throwing off

the petitioner-claimant from the vehicle causing him

bodily injuries.

3. To substantiate the case, petitioner produce

Exts.A1 to A6. After going through the documents and

pleadings, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition

mainly for the reason that, there is a contradiction about

the date of accident in the claim petition. It is also found

that, there is a delay in lodging the complaint before the

police. Mainly for these two reasons, the claim petition

was dismissed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

5. The learned counsel for appellant submitted

that, the findings of the tribunal is per se illegal. The

tribunal has not even allowed the petitioner to adduce

evidence to substantiate the case. The learned counsel

also submitted that, there is a medical evidence also to MACA.No.190 OF 2013

show that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on

28.12.2002. He conceded that, the date is wrongly

mentioned in the claim petition at one place as

27.01.2002. The learned counsel submitted that, the

petitioner will be able to substantiate the same before

the tribunal if an opportunity is given to him. I think, in

the facts and circumstances of the case, an opportunity

can be given to the petitioner to substantiate the case.

The tribunal rejected the claim petition mainly for the

reason that, there is a contradiction about the date of

accident. When the petitioner submitted before this

Court that, he can explain the contradiction which

according to him happened due to a mistake, I think, the

petitioner can be given an opportunity to adduce

evidence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I

think, this matter can be sent back to the tribunal and

the tribunal can be directed to consider this matter

afresh in accordance with law.

Therefore, this appeal is allowed:-

 MACA.No.190 OF 2013





               1.     The      impugned     order    dated

24.09.2012 in O.P.(MV) No.21/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal is set aside.

2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal will restore OP(MV) No.21/2005 and allow the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence.

3. After giving opportunity to adduce further evidence, the tribunal will dispose of the claim petition as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of judgment.

4. The parties will appear before the tribunal on 26.04.2021.

(Sd/-)

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE LU