Kerala High Court
Augustus David.M vs Sundary Velayudhan on 11 March, 2025
MACA NO. 3568 OF 2016 1 2025:KER:20749
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946
MACA NO. 3568 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 27.10.2014 IN OP(MV)NO.1473 OF
2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT:
AUGUSTUS DAVID.M
S/O.DAVID, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.K.KOSHY
SRI.ANIL GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 SUNDARY VELAYUDHAN
W/O. VELAYUDHAN, PUTHUVALSTHALATH HOUSE,
WESTERN SIDE OF THE SMASHANAM, MURIKKUMPADOM,
AZHEEKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 508.
2 REGHU VELAYUDHAN
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PUTHUVALSTHALATH HOUSE, WESTERN SIDE
OF THE SMASHANAM, MURIKKUMPADOM, AZHEEKAL P.O.,
ERNAKULAM-682 508.
3 SHEELA VELAYUDHAN
D/O. VELAYUDHAN, PUTHUVALSTHALATH HOUSE, WESTERN SIDE
OF THE SMASHANAM, MURIKKUMPADOM, AZHEEKAL P.O.,
ERNAKULAM-682 508.
4 SHOBHA VELAYUDHAN
D/O. VELAYUDHAN, PUTHUVALSTHALATH HOUSE, WESTERN SIDE
MACA NO. 3568 OF 2016 2 2025:KER:20749
OF THE SMASHANAM, MURIKKUMPADOM, AZHEEKAL P.O.,
ERNAKULAM-682 508.
5 SHINE RAJ
S/O. SASI, MATTAPALLY HOUSE, NEAR THONIPALAM,
PUTHUVYPPU VILLAGE, PUTHUVYPPU KARA, ERNAKULAM-682
508.
6 SUTHEESH
S/O. SURENDRAN, KANDATHILCHIRA HOUSE,
THEKKENMALIPPURAM, PUTHUVYPPU VILLAGE, PUTHUVYPPU
KARA, ERNAKULAM-682 508.
7 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DEEPTHI BUILDING, (OPPOSITE COCHIN HOSPITAL),
PALLIMUKKU, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 016.
BY ADV DENIZEN KOMATH
SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR - SC
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 3568 OF 2016 3 2025:KER:20749
JUDGMENT
The 4th respondent in O.P(MV)No.1473 of 2011 on the files
of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, is the appellant.
(For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to
as per their rank before the Tribunal)
2. The above Original Petition was filed by the legal
representatives of deceased Sivakumar, who died in a road traffic
accident that occurred on 03.07.2009.
3. According to the petitioners, on 03.07.2009 at about 11.45
p.m., while the deceased was travelling in a Maruthi Omni Van
bearing Reg.No.KL 07/AS 1234 along the Vypin - Munamban Road
which was driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent
manner, the van hit against a boundary wall of an ice plant and as a
result Sri.Sivakumar sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to
the injuries on the same day.
4. The 1st respondent is the owner; 3rd respondent is the
insurer and the 4th respondent is the insured of the offending vehicle.
According to the petitioners, the accident was occurred due to the
MACA NO. 3568 OF 2016 4 2025:KER:20749
negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of
compensation claimed in the original petition was Rs.10,00,000/-.
5. The 3rd respondent - insurance company filed a written
statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. They
also contended that the policy issued is only a statutory liability only
policy, which does not cover the passengers of the insured vehicle.
No additional premium was paid for the passengers.
6. The evidence in the case consists of documentary
evidence, ie; Exts.A1 to A6 and Ext.B1.
7. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal
awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,43,000/- and found that there
was no valid insurance policy to cover the deceased, exonerated the
insurance company and directed respondents 2 and 4 to jointly and
severally pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. Aggrieved
by the above award, the 4th respondent has come up with this appeal.
8. Now the point that araise for consideration is the
following:
MACA NO. 3568 OF 2016 5 2025:KER:20749
Whether the 4th respondent/appellant was the registered
owner of the offending vehicle?
9. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the
appellant had transferred the ownership of the vehicle to the 1 st
respondent as early as on 04.05.2009, while the accident was on
03.07.2009 and as such the Tribunal was not justified in finding that
he was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident and
mulcting the liability on him. To substantiate the said contention, he
has produced Annexure A, the RC particulars of the offending vehicle
bearing Reg.No.KL 07/AS 1234. From Annexure A, the RC particulars,
it can be seen that the 1st respondent Sri.Shine Raj became the
registered owner of the said vehicle with effect from 04.05.2009.
Therefore, as on the date of accident, ie; 03.07.2009 the 1 st
respondent was the owner of the offending vehicle and not the 4 th
respondent. In the afore circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified
in finding that the appellant was the registered owner of the vehicle
at the time of the accident. Therefore, the impugned award passed by
the tribunal against the appellant is liable to be set aside and the 4 th
MACA NO. 3568 OF 2016 6 2025:KER:20749
respondent/appellant is liable to be exonerated.
10. The learned counsel for the original petitioners would
argue that the deceased Sivakumar was an employee of the 1 st
respondent and Ext.B1 policy covers an employee and if so, the
insurer is to be mulcted with a liability to pay the compensation due
to the petitioners. However, it is to be noted that in the impugned
award, the insurer was exonerated and the said award was not
challenged by the original petitioner. Hence the above argument
advanced by the learned counsel for the original petitioners cannot be
entertained, in this appeal.
11. The learned counsel for the original petitioners, relying
upon Ext.A4 Certificate submitted that the deceased was working in
Jeyes Ice Factory in which the 1st respondent was a partner and
prayed that an opportunity be given to them to prove that the
deceased was the employee of the 1st respondent, so that they could
claim compensation from the insurer.
12. In the impugned award the Tribunal proceeded against
the 4th respondent on the assumption that he was the insured of the
MACA NO. 3568 OF 2016 7 2025:KER:20749
offending vehicle. However, it is revealed that the 1 st respondent was
the registered owner of the offending vehicle and not the 4 th
respondent. From Ext.A4 Certificate it is revealed that the deceased
was working in Jeyes Ice Factory. According to the learned counsel
for the original petitioners, 1st respondent is one of the partners of
Jeyes Ice Factory. In the above circumstances, on the ground of
equity, in order to prove that the 1 st respondent was the employer of
the deceased, an opportunity is to be given to them, by remanding
the matter to the Tribunal, for fresh disposal of the claim petition.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the
impugned award to the extent it mulcted the liability on the 4 th
respondent/appellant is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the
Tribunal in order to ascertain whether the deceased was an employee
of the 1st respondent and if so, to adjudicate as to whether the 3 rd
respondent/insurer has any liability to indemnify the 1st respondent.
14. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on
21.04.2025. Considering the fact that the original petition was of the
year 2011, the Tribunal shall make every endeavour to dispose of the
MACA NO. 3568 OF 2016 8 2025:KER:20749
same at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of six months from
21.04.2025, the date fixed for the appearance of parties before the
Tribunal.
15. At this time the learned counsel for the 4th
respondent/appellant submitted that the appellant had already
deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- as part of the compensation
amount. If such an amount is deposited, the same shall be returned
to the appellant, as per rules.
Sd/-
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
JUDGE
MC/12.3
