Kerala High Court
Jaimon Jose vs Sajikumar on 6 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
MACA NO. 3034 OF 2015
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 28.4.2014 IN OPMV 574/2005 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
,PATHANAMTHITTA / I ADDL. M.A.C.T.
APPELLANT/RESPONDENTNO.2 IN O.P.(MV):
JAIMON JOSE
S/O. JOSE, KALLIDUKKIL HOUSE, MATTAKARA P.O.,
KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.G.RAGESH
SRI.BINNY THOMAS
SRI.C.M.GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 IN O.P.(MV):
1 SAJIKUMAR
S/O. KANIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENAPPADY P.O., ERUMELY
SOUTH VILLAGE, KANJIRAPALLY TALUK.PIN 686507
2 REJIKUMARS/O. PAPPAN, PARACKAL HOUSE, MANNADISALA
P.O., VECHOOCHIRA.PIN-686505
3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., KOTTAYAM (INSURER).
PIN-686001.
BY ADV SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.3034/2015.
2
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the 2 nd respondent in O.P.
(MV) No.574 of 2005 on the files of the Additional Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-I (Addl.District Judge-I),
Pathanamthitta. The parties are referred to as per their
status in the claim petition unless otherwise specifically
mentioned.
2. On 17.01.2005, while the petitioner was travelling
on a motor bike as pillion rider through Erumeli-Vechoochira
public road, a jeep bearing Registration No. KL-3/A-934
driven by the 1st respondent rashly and negligently, knocked
down the motor bike and the petitioner sustained injuries.
The 2nd respondent is the owner of the jeep and the 3 rd
respondent is its insurer. The petitioner preferred the claim
petition under the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a total
compensation of Rs.1,45,500/-.
3. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2
M.A.C.A.No.3034/2015.
remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent insurance company
filed a written statement admitting the existence of valid
insurance policy with regard to the Jeep. However, they
contended that the 1st respondent was not having a valid
driving licence at the time of accident and therefore, the
insurer is not liable to indemnify the 2 nd respondent. It was
also contended that the amount claimed as compensation is
excessive.
4. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due
to the negligence of the 1st respondent-driver and that the
insurer is not liable to indemnify the 2 nd respondent. The
Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.62,880/- as compensation
to the petitioner with 9% interest per annum from the date
of petition till realisation with proportionate costs. The 3 rd
respondent insurer was directed to satisfy the award and 3 rd
respondent was given liberty to recover the amount from
the 2nd respondent, the owner of the vehicle. Challenging
the award to the extent it ordered that the 3 rd respondent is
M.A.C.A.No.3034/2015.
entitled to recover the amount from the 2 nd respondent, this
appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the insurance company
submits that pursuant to the award, the insurance company
has deposited an amount of Rs.78,239/- before the Tribunal
and the petitioner has withdrawn the said amount.
6. According to the appellant/2nd respondent, he was
not the owner of the Jeep bearing registration No. KL-3/A -
934 at the time of the accident and that he had sold the
said vehicle as early as on 2.11.2004 and had no connection
with the same whatsoever thereafter. The learned counsel
for the appellant also refers to Annexure A2 vehicle
mahazar to show that the jeep was in the ownership of one
Jayasree at the time of the accident. It is also submitted that
the appellant did not contest the claim before the Tribunal
since the person who purchased the vehicle had informed
the appellant that she would contest the claim before the
Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant also refers to
M.A.C.A.No.3034/2015.
Rule 376 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short,
'the Rules') and contended that it shall be the responsibility
of the insurance company in an application for
compensation to furnish the particulars of the registered
owner of the vehicle. Rule 376 of the Rules reads as
follows:-
"376. (1) It shall be the responsibility of the insurance
company to collect the particulars regarding the
registered owner of the vehicle and the driving licence
and submit a report thereof to the Claims Tribunal
concerned together with other information such as the
name of the Insurance Company, the Divisional Office
under which the policy has been taken, the number of
the policy/Certificate, the period for which the policy
subsists and the nature of the insurance liability,
immediately on receipt of information regarding the
accident from the parties.
(2) The Insurance Companies may require the Regional
Transport Officer/Joint Regional Transport Officer
concerned to give the details of the accident in Form
"Comp. B" to enable them to submit reports under sub-
rule(1) and on receipt of such requisition the Regional
Transport Officer or the Joint Regional Transport Officer
concerned shall provide the necessary details to the
Insurance Company."
M.A.C.A.No.3034/2015.
7. In the light of the provisions under Rule 376 of the
Rules, the insurance company has the bounden duty to
show that the person from whom they seek to recover the
compensation is the owner of the vehicle. Annexure A2
vehicle mahazar would indicate that the vehicle was sold to
one Jayasree as early as on 2.11.2004. In the said
circumstances, I am of the view that the right of the insurer
to recover the compensation from the appellant needs to be
reconsidered by the Tribunal.
8. Accordingly, the impugned award is set aside to
the limited extent of permitting the 3 rd respondent to
recover the compensation from the appellant. The Tribunal
is directed to consider the issue as to the right of the 3 rd
respondent to recover compensation from the appellant
afresh with notice to the appellant. Parties are at liberty to
adduce evidence before the Tribunal and to make necessary
application for impleading proper and necessary parties.
M.A.C.A.No.3034/2015.
The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on
17.8.2022. It is made clear that the award passed by the
Tribunal in favour of the petitioner/1 st respondent and the
right of the petitioner to realise the compensation from the
3rd respondent-insurer are confirmed. Since the award in
favour of the petitioner/1st respondent is confirmed, he
need not appear before the Tribunal. The amount deposited
by the appellant as pre-deposit under Section 173 (2) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shall be released to him in case
the Tribunal finds that the appellant was not the owner of
the vehicle at the time of the accident.
The appeal is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh
consideration to the extent indicated above.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
al/-.+
