Kerala High Court
Beepathumma vs K.K.Hamsa on 15 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
MACA NO. 1926 OF 2013
[AGAINST THE COMMON AWARD DATED 5.7.2012 IN OP(MV)NO.746/2008 ON
THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD]
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
BEEPATHUMMA
AGED 60 YEARS
W/O.SYED MOHAMMED, EASWARAMKODE HOUSE,VELIKKAD,
EZHAKKAD AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 K.K.HAMSA
S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, KULLANKAVIL HOUSE,
KONDOTTY,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (R.C.OWNER OF LORRY KA-
21/7281)
2 SIDDIQUE ALI
S/O.YOUSUF, PETTETHODI VEEDU, ERANI, KARIMBA,MANNARKKAD
TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT(DRIVER OF LORRY KA-21/7281)
3 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
MANJERI BRANCH OFFICE, JASLELA COMPLEX,BYPASS JUNCTION,
NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (INSURER OF
LORRY KA-21/7281)
BY ADVS.
R3 BY SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA No.1926 OF 2013
2
JUDGMENT
This appeal is submitted by the claimant in OP(MV) 746/2008
on the files of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. The said
claim petition was submitted by the appellant seeking compensation
for the damages sustained to the building owned by her, when a
lorry bearing Registration No.KA-21/7281, driven by the 2 nd
respondent hit the said building. The said vehicle was owned by the
1st respondent and it was insured with the 3rd respondent.
2. The 3rd respondent resisted the claim petition by filing a
written statement wherein they admitted the coverage of policy for
the said vehicle. However, the quantum of compensation and the
negligence were disputed by them. To substantiate the claim, the
appellant produced Exts.A7 and A8. However, the Tribunal dismissed
the claim petition mainly on the ground that the appellant could not
establish her ownership of the said building. This appeal is submitted
by the appellant challenging the order of dismissal.
3. Heard Sri.Rajesh Sivaramankutty, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Sri. Mathews Jacob, learned Senior
counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that the
reasons cited by the Tribunal for dismissing the application are not
MACA No.1926 OF 2013
legally sustainable. However, the learned counsel appearing for the
3rd respondent opposed the said contentions by pointing out that the
materials produced on record are not sufficient to establish the
ownership of the appellant over the building in question.
5. On perusal of the records, it could be seen that only two
documents were produced by the appellant to substantiate their
claim, in which Ext.A7 is the valuation report with regard to the
damages sustained to the building. However, the person who
prepared the valuation report has not been examined and the actual
expenditure incurred while carrying out the repairs also not
established by producing any documents in this regard. Besides the
same, Ext. A8, the title deed pertaining to the property in which the
building claimed to have been situated, stands in the name of
another person. The specific case of the appellant is that the said
property was inherited by her after the death of the person named in
Ext.A8 as title holder. However, the relationship between the
appellant and the title holder referred to in Ext.A8 and the
documents relating to the inheritance as well as the ownership of the
appellant over the properties in question are not on record. Besides
the same, as rightly found by the Tribunal, the Ext.A8 does not
contain any description as to the building in the said property. When
all the aforesaid aspects are taken into consideration, I am of the
MACA No.1926 OF 2013
view that, the documents now available on record are not sufficient
to establish the claim of the appellant.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant brought the
attention of this Court to IA No.2201/2012, filed by the appellant
through which the property tax receipts evidencing the payment of
tax in the name of the petitioner to the Mundoor Grama Panchayath
has been produced. However, it is evident from the records that the
said IA was submitted after the disposal of the application.
7. After considering all the relevant aspects, I am of the
view that even though the appellant did not produce sufficient
documents to establish her title and the extent of damage sustained,
a further opportunity can be granted to the petitioner for adducing
evidence in the interest of justice. This is particularly because, the
records which she sought to be produced before the Tribunal, even
though belatedly, prima facie suggests her title over the property and
the building. Therefore, it is only proper that she may be granted a
further opportunity to establish her claim.
Accordingly, the award dated 5.07.2012, passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in OP(MV) No.746/2008 is hereby
set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to enable
the appellant to adduce evidence in support of her claim. The
Tribunal shall grant reasonable opportunity to all the parties
MACA No.1926 OF 2013
concerned to adduce evidence and establish their respective
contentions. Thereupon, a decision shall be taken in accordance with
the law after appreciating the evidence so adduced. The parties to
this appeal are directed to appear before the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Palakkad on 25.03.2024. Every endeavour shall be taken by
the Tribunal for disposing the claim petition as expeditiously as
possible taking note of the fact that this is a claim of the year 2008.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
sms
