Kerala High Court
Muhammed Shafi vs Geetha on 29 July, 2025
OP (MAC) NO. 67 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:56149
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1947
OP (MAC) NO. 67 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 14.05.2025 IN OPMV NO.358 OF
2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED SHAFI,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. SHAHUL HAMEED,SHA NIVAS,
AANAPPARA, KADAKKAL P O,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691536
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
SHRI.JASNEED JAMAL
SMT.LIRA A.B.
SMT.DEVIKA E.D.
SHRI.ABIN RASHID
RESPONDENTS:
1 GEETHA,
W/O. SUDHAKAR,PARAPPALAYAM, PONGUPALAYALM,
TIRUPUR, TAMIL NADU (NOW RESIDING AT VELIYA VELLAPPIL,
KOZHINJAMPARA, CHITTUR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678555
2 RAMAR,
S/O. THANKAPPAN, PERUMALKUNNU,
NANNILAM P O, NANNILAM TALUK,
TIRUVARUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 610105
3 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NAMAKKAL DIVISION,
TAMIL NADU,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, PIN - 637001
OP (MAC) NO. 67 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:56149
4 MATHEW ALEXANDER,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O, ALEXANDER, NEETHU NIVAS,
THIRUMULLAVARAM P O,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691012
5 LISSY MATHEW,
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O. MATHEW ALEXANDER, NEETHU NIVAS,
THIRUMULLAVARAM P O,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691012
6 M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM DIVISION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, PIN - 691001
7 AMJETHKOYA (IMPLEADED)
S/O. MUTHUKOYA THANGAL FARHATH, KARICODE T. K. M.C.
P.O. KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM ( IS IMPLEADED AS
ADDITIONAL R7 VIDE ORDER DATED 27.06.25 IN IA.1/25)
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.B.SHYNI
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM
SRI.AKHIL SUSEENDRAN
SHRI.THOMAS C.ABRAHAM
SHRI.BASIL MATHEW
SHRI.RAJESH KUMAR R.
SHRI.V.R.ANILKUMAR
SHRI.SARAFUDHEEN T.
SHRI.ELDHOSE JOY
SHRI.AJITH P.C.
SMT.VISHNUJA BIJU
SHRI.AMARJITH VADUVANKUTY
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. GEORGE A CHERIAN, SC.
THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.07.2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (MAC) NO. 67 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:56149
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, along with his wife, are the claimants in O.P.
(MV) No.358 of 2015 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Kollam, claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, concerning the death of their son in a road accident on
01.01.2015.
2. The petitioner alleges that the car driven by one Nixon
Abey Mathew in a rash and negligent manner collided with a Gas
tanker lorry bearing No.KL-39-C-4577 and all six passengers in the car
died on the spot. On the complaint preferred by the parents of the car
driver, the investigation was handed over to the City Crime Branch,
Kollam, after which an abated charge sheet was filed under Sections
279 and 304A of the IPC against Nixon Aby Mathew, the car driver. All
together seven claim petitions were filed in respect of the same
incident. Later, a final report was submitted as the motor occurrence
report exonerating Nixon Aby Mathew. The final report filed as the
motor occurrence report was challenged by the petitioner in Crl. M.C.
No. 4870 of 2021, before this Court, wherein the motor occurrence
OP (MAC) NO. 67 OF 2025
2025:KER:56149
report was quashed through Ext.P1 order dated 31.03.2022, and the
original charge against Nixon Aby Mathew was restored.
3. The father of Nixon Aby Mathew, challenged Ext P1 order
before the Apex Court, which set aside the order of this Court through
Ext.P2 judgment, holding that in the claim petitions, negligence will
have to be established for sustaining the claim, and in all seven claim
petitions, liberty was granted to adduce the evidence to prove
negligence. The claimants in O.P.(MV) No.150 of 2015 approached this
Court by filing O.P.(MAC) No.106 of 2024, in which Ext.P3 judgment was
passed on 14.01.2025, directing the tribunal concerned to dispose of all
the cases within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment.
4. The petitioner in the instant case filed an application for
recalling the investing officer, which was dismissed through Ext.P5
order dated 14.05.2025, which is challenged in this original petition.
5. The tribunal found that Circle Inspector, one of the
investigating officers, was summoned by the petitioner as PW5 in O.P.
(MV) No.150 of 2015 and, thereafter, at the instance of the petitioner,
OP (MAC) NO. 67 OF 2025
2025:KER:56149
he was again recalled and examined as per order in I.A. No.17 of 2025.
The tribunal also found that the investigating officer was earlier
examined on 25.08.2023, and the present application was filed only on
19.04.2025. The evidence on the side of the respondents was also closed.
It is also found that repeated applications were being filed by the
petitioner to prolong the disposal of the case.
6. Upon admission of this original petition, this Court had
passed an order on 11.07.2025 directing the Registry to get a report
from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, as to the status of
the trial in this case. Accordingly, a communication dated 18.07.2025
has been received from the tribunal, which also mentions the filing of
I.A. No. 20 of 2025 in O.P.(MV) No.356 of 2015. It is also noted that the
petitioner had filed I.A. No. 20 of 2025 in O.P.(MV) No.356 of 2015 to
hear the cases separately without clubbing them together. It is also
stated that due to the stay order passed by this Court, the said
applications could not be disposed of. It is also stated that the
petitioner has also filed I.A. No.16 of 2015 for impleading, and the same
is also pending consideration on account of the stay order passed by
OP (MAC) NO. 67 OF 2025
2025:KER:56149
this Court.
7. The fact remains that all seven cases arising out of the same
accident have been tried jointly, and the request of the petitioner to
try them separately was not sustainable. As stated above, this Court
had already issued a direction on 14.01.2025 directing the disposal of all
the cases within six months. It is submitted that the said period also
expired on 20.07.2025. On going through the reasons stated in the
impugned order, I do not find any illegality at all, warranting
interference in this original petition.
8. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. However,
there will be a direction to the tribunal to dispose of the cases, at the
earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of the judgment.
The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the
tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
LU
OP (MAC) NO. 67 OF 2025
2025:KER:56149
APPENDIX OF OP (MAC) 67/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2022 IN
CRL.MC 4870/2021 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/07/2023 IN
CRL.APPEAL 1931/2023 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14-01-2025 IN
OP (MAC) 106/2024 ON THE FILES OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN IA
18/2025 IN OP(MV) 358/2015 ON THE FILES OF
MACT KOLLAM.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/05/2025 IN IA
18/2025 IN OP(MV) 358/2015 ON THE FILES OF
MACT KOLLAM.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT R7(1) THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(MAC)
NO.106/2024 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/05/2025
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM IN I.A. NO. 16/2025 IN O.P.
// True Copy // PA To Judge
