Rajan John vs Raju N. John
2021 Latest Caselaw 7569 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

 THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                      MACA.No.127 OF 2008(H)

   AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 592/2002 DATED 22-12-2006 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
                    TRIBUNAL ,ALAPPUZHA.


APPELLANT/S:

               RAJAN JOHN, S/O T C YOHANNAN,
               'PALLAVI', X/792, ZILLA COURT WARD, ALAPPUZHA.,
               (PERMANENT ADDRESS: THALAPPILAMVELIL, KOODAL
               P.O., PATTANAMTHITTA)

               BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN

RESPONDENT/S:

      1        RAJU N. JOHN, S/O VYOHANNAN
               NOOROLIL VEEDU, VENMANI VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR.

      2        THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
               KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

      3        THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
               VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

               R3 BY ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH

     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 02-03-2021, THE COURT ON 04-03-2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 MACA.No.127 OF 2008(H)                       2



                                  P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                          -----------------------------------------------
                                 M.A.C.A. No.127 of 2008
                               --------------------------------------
                         Dated this the 4th day of March, 2021


                                         JUDGMENT

The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No.592/2002 on the

file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. The above

claim petition was filed under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. The short facts are like this :

While the appellant was driving his car along Alappuzha-

Kollam National Highway on 1.5.2001, at about 7 pm in the evening,

he met with an accident at Thookkenkulam Junction. It is alleged that

a KSRTC bus bearing No.KL-15/3057 driven by the 1 st respondent

came from the opposite direction, hit the right front portion of the car

and as a result of this, the appellant/petitioner sustained very injuries.

According to the claimant, the accident occurred because of the rash

and negligent driving of the 1 st respondent. Therefore, respondents

are liable to pay compensation.

2. To substantiate the case, 11 documents were produced and

the same is marked as Exts.A1 to A11. Based on these documents and

pleadings, the Tribunal passed an award of Rs.2,14,505/-. Aggrieved

by the quantum of compensation, this appeal is filed.

3. Heard counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the

respondents.

4. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal

has not considered Ext.A7 disability certificate. The Tribunal has not

allowed the appellant to adduce oral evidence to substantiate his

case. According to him, he sustained partial permanent disability of

10%. He wants to adduce evidence. Even now, he is suffering from

different disability even though the accident was happened in 2001.

The disability certificate was produced in 2006. According to the

counsel, if an opportunity is given to the appellant to adduce further

evidence, he will be able to prove that there is disability and he is

entitled more compensation under different heads.

5. The counsel for the respondents opposed the same. The

counsel submitted that after considering the available evidence, the

Tribunal passed the award and there is nothing to interfere with the

impugned award.

6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this

case, I think an opportunity can be given to the appellant. The

appellant says that he was working in Milma as an Asst. Manager. He

was in the hospital for 75 days. According to him, he sustained very

serious injuries. Even now, he is suffering from different disabilities.

The grievance of the appellant is that he was not able to adduce oral

evidence because the court was not allowing the same in injury cases.

If the appellant want to adduce evidence, the Tribunal ought to have

granted an opportunity to adduce evidence. In the facts and

circumstances, I think this appeal can be allowed and the case can be

remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, after giving

opportunity to adduce further evidence to both sides. There can be a

time limit also to dispose the claim petition because the claim petition

was filed in the year 2002.

Therefore, this MACA is allowed.

1) Order dated 22.12.2006 in O.P.(M.V.) No.592/2002 is set aside and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha is directed to restore O.P.(M.V.) No.592/2002.

2) The Tribunal will allow both parties to adduce further evidence, if any, oral and documentary.

3) If an application is filed for examination of the appellant by a Medical Board, the Tribunal will allow the same.

4) The Tribunal will dispose the case as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The parties will appear before the Tribunal on 31.3.2021.

sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS