Kerala High Court
S.Mohanan vs Ammini Amma on 20 May, 2024
Author: Mary Joseph
Bench: Mary Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
MACA NO. 624 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 01.08.2013 IN OP(MV) NO.1244 OF 2008 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
S.MOHANAN,
S/O SREEDAHRAN, CHANNAMALA, KOLATTEL VEEDU,
VALLAMKULAM EAST P.O, NELLAD, THIRUVALALA- 689 541
BY ADV.
SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3:
1 AMMINI AMMA,
AGED 65 YEARS,
MANNUMPURATH VEEDU, VALLAMKULAM WEST P.O, THIRUVALLA
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 541
2 SUDHEER,
KALARICKAL VEEDU, KODANTHURUTHU P.O, CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 524
3 K.R. MURALEEDHARAN,
S/O RAGHAVAN, POIKAMANNIL VEEDU,
VALLAMKULAM EAST P.O, NELLADU, THIRUVALALA 689 541
BY ADVS.
SRI.SIBI THOMAS JACOB
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 27.02.2024, THE COURT ON 20.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No.624 of 2014 2
MARY JOSEPH, J.
-----------------------
M.A.C.A. No.624 of 2014
-----------------------
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
Award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Pathanamthitta (for short, 'the Tribunal') on 01.08.2013 in
O.P(M.V) No. 1244/2008 is under challenge in the appeal on
hand. The appellant was the 2nd respondent in the above Original
Petition filed by the 1st respondent before the Tribunal seeking a
sum of `75,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by
her in a motor accident occurred on 27.07.2008. The vehicle
involved in the motor accident was a motorcycle bearing
registration No.KL 4F 4820, driven by the 3 rd respondent herein.
The above Original Petition was filed by the 1 st respondent
contending that the motor accident was occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the 3 rd respondent and
that she is entitled to get `75,000/- as compensation from the
registered owner, the transferee and the driver of the motorcycle,
who were respectively arrayed in the Original Petition as
respondents 1 to 3.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties to this
appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and
respondents 1 to 3 in accordance with their status before the
Tribunal.
3. 2nd respondent entered appearance on service of
notice from the Tribunal. Respondents 1 and 3 failed to appear
despite service of notice from the Tribunal and therefore, were
declared as ex parte. 2nd respondent in his written statement
contended that he is neither the owner nor the possessor of the
motorcycle bearing registration No.KL 4F 4820 at the relevant
time of the motor accident, that the 1 st respondent was it's real
owner and he only helped the 1st respondent to get the vehicle
released in his favour from Police custody after the motor
accident by executing a bond. The petitioner had averred in the
Original Petition that the offending motorcycle was not insured
at the relevant time of the motor accident.
4. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked by the petitioner in
evidence. The contesting 2nd respondent did not adduce any
evidence. The Tribunal found the petitioner entitled to get
compensation and arrived at a sum of `51,460/-. The Tribunal
also found on a scrutiny of the materials available that the 2 nd
respondent was vicariously liable for the negligence of the 3 rd
respondent and thereby, dismissed the Original Petition as
against the 1st respondent. Accordingly, the Tribunal made
respondents 2 and 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation arrived at in favour of the petitioner alongwith
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of
the Original Petition till the date of realisation and cost of
`4,400/-. It directed the 2 nd respondent to deposit the
compensation with interest and costs within 30 days from the
date of passing of the award.
5. Aggrieved 2nd respondent has preferred the
appeal on hand. According to him, he was arrayed in the Original
Petition only as the owner in possession of the vehicle. According
to him, he had taken a specific contention in the written
statement filed before the Tribunal that the 1st respondent was
the owner of the vehicle and that he only assisted him to get the
vehicle released from police custody after the motor accident, by
executing a bond. According to him, the 1 st respondent though
served with notice failed to appear and contest the Original
Petition.
6. Admittedly there was no policy for the
motorcycle at the relevant time of the motor accident. The
Tribunal also found that the 2nd respondent had taken the vehicle
from the Police station after executing a bond. The Tribunal found
that respondent No.3 was chargesheeted for offences under
Section 146 r/w Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Accordingly, the 2nd respondent who was in actual possession of
the vehicle was made liable to compensate the petitioner.
7. It is pertinent to note that from the certificate of
registration of the motorcycle referred to above that it stands in
the name of the 1st respondent. 1st respondent did not turn up to
contest the Original Petition despite service of notice from the
Tribunal. Therefore, the contentions of the 2 nd respondent that
he was only possessor of the motorcycle involved in the motor
accident and helped the 1st respondent in getting the vehicle
released from the custody of the police were not controverted.
8. For the sole reason that the vehicle was taken
from custody by the 2nd respondent, he cannot be treated as the
owner of the vehicle. Vicarious liability can only be fastened on
the person whose name finds a place in the certificate of
registration of the vehicle as it's registered owner. Having found
the 1st respondent as the registered owner of the vehicle, the
Tribunal ought not to have fixed vicarious liability for the
negligent act of the 3rd respondent on the 2nd respondent. It is
found that the Tribunal erroneously fixed vicarious liability on the
2nd respondent and made him liable to pay the compensation
arrived at in favour of the petitioner. The liability fixed by the
Tribunal on the 2nd respondent is only to be set aside and the
same is liable to be imposed on the 1st respondent.
9. Appeal succeeds for the reason and is allowed.
The impugned award to the extent it dismissed the Original
Petition as against the 1st respondent and fixed liability on the 2 nd
respondent to pay the compensation arrived at with interest and
costs in favour of the petitioner is set aside. The Original Petition
as against the 1st respondent is allowed and liability is fixed on
him to pay the compensation with interest and costs in favour of
the petitioner. 1st respondent is thus directed to pay the
compensation with interest and costs as ordered by the Tribunal
in favour of the petitioner within a period of two months from the
date on which a certified copy of this judgment is received.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
JUDGE
JJ
