Kunjuraman Pillai vs M/S.Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 5331 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
   FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1944
                       RFA NO. 309 OF 2016
   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.08.2015 IN OS
               304/2010 OF SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA.
APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF :

         KUNJURAMAN PILLAI,
         S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 57 YEARS,
         GOKULAM VEEDU, KAREEPRA VILLAGE,
         KUZHIMATHIKADU P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.
         BY ADVS.
         SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP
         SRI.V.JAYADHAR


RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS       :

    1    M/S.BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,
         DISTRICT OFFICE, NEAR ARCHANA - ARADHANA THEATRE,
         KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (TD)
    2    MOHANACHANDRAN @ MOHANAN PILLAI,
         S/O. SREEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 53 YEARS,
         LINE MAN/TELEPHONE MECHANIC, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,
         BSNL OFFICE, NEDUMONCAVU, NEDUMONCAVU P.O.,
         KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT
         ASWATHY BHAVAN, MUNNAMMOODU, VAKKANADU WARD,
         KAREEPRA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.


         BY ADV SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL

     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
20.05.2022,    THE   COURT       ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 RFA No.309 of 2016                     2




                            P.SOMARAJAN, J.
                 ------------------------------------------------
                            RFA No.309 of 2016
               ----------------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 20th day of May, 2022.

                            JUDGMENT

The victim, who suffered an injury in connection with

an alleged incident covered by Ext.A3 F.I.R, Ext.A4 final

report, Ext.A5 scene mahazar, Ext.A6 vehicle mahazar and

Ext.A7 wound certificate, came up in appeal aggrieved by

the dismissal of the application on the sole ground that he

has not given direct evidence by mounting on the box

overlooking the fact that the police have registered a crime

against the employee of the respondents. The wound

certificate and other relevant records were produced. The

person who witnessed the incident was also examined. It

seems to be so unfortunate that the claim petition was

dismissed though the victim suffered very serious injuries

affecting his memory power. It is submitted by the learned

counsel for the appellant that he has suffered very serious

injuries and is not able to move from one place to another.

But the learned Sub Judge entered into a finding that the

abovesaid victim had given oral evidence in the criminal

case as PW2 and the certified copy of the same was

obtained and produced as Ext.B4. The fact that the victim

had not given direct evidence alone is not sufficient to

reject the suit or to enter into an adverse finding regarding

the negligence contributed. It is not safe to insist direct

evidence from the injured regarding the real cause of the

accident, when it is otherwise proved by direct evidence of

witnesses and other relevant records. The reason advanced

by the trial court for dismissing the application cannot be

sustained and hence set aside. The matter is remanded

back to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with

the law in force by affording ample opportunity to the

appellant and the respondents to prove their respective

cases by oral and documentary evidence, for which, the

parties shall appear before the trial court on 02-06-2022.

There will be a further direction to dispose of the

matter within a time schedule of three months from the

date of appearance of the parties and report compliance.

The appeal is allowed in part accordingly. No costs.

The appellant is exempted from paying the court fee

since the remand is not on the fault of the appellant as per

Section 67 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation

Act, 1959. So there is no necessity to recover the court

fee payable under Order XXXIII Rule 14 C.P.C.

Sd/-

P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE amk

APPENDIX

APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES :

ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF THE I.A NO.775 OF 2015 .

ANNEXURE A2 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO.775 OF 2015 DATED 4-6-2015.

ANNEXURE A3 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-8-2015 IN I.A NO.1110 OF 2015.

ANNEXURE A4 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-8-2015 IN I.A NO.1021 OF 2015.

RESPONDENTS'S ANNEXURES        :       NIL.