K.K.Mathew Vs. B.Mohammed

K.K.Mathew vs B.Mohammed

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Sep 30, 2013

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1094389

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1094389
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice S.Siri Jagan
Decided On: Sep 30, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

K.K.Mathew

Respondent

B.Mohammed

Excerpt

.....the death of their bread winners. the two o.ps were jointly tried and disposed of by a common award, which is under challenge in this appeal filed by the dependants of deceased shijo mathew. the tribunal after considering the evidence came m.a.c.a. no.2096 of 2008 -2- to the conclusion that ext.b2 policy was issued in favour of a mahindra jeep, whereas, the tata sumo jeep against whom the claimants sought compensation was not insured with the 6th respondent insurance company. the appellants' contention is that the tribunal did not consider the question of negligence on the part of the lorry which was actually the case of the appellants. the appellants therefore now contend that the award has to be set aside and the matter should be directed to be reconsidered with an opportunity to the appellants to adduce further evidence, if necessary.2. we have heard the counsel for the insurance company as well.3. we are not quite satisfied with the award of the tribunal. the tribunal has simply considered the question as to whether there was a policy for the tata sumo vehicle issued by the 6th respondent-insurance company. the tribunal had noted the contention of the appellants that the accident was due to negligent driving of the lorry driven by the 2nd respondent. but on that question, no finding was m.a.c.a. no.2096 of 2008 -3- entered by the tribunal. in the above circumstances, we are of opinion that, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the tribunal. accordingly, the award in o.p.(m.v.) no.868/2001 of the motor accidents claims tribunal, thrissur is set aside and the o.p. is remanded to the tribunal for fresh consideration for considering all the contentions of the parties affording a further opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases, if necessary. the appeal is disposed of as above. sd/- s.siri jagan, judge sd/- k.ramakrishnan, judge shg/

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN MONDAY,THE30H DAY OF SEPTEMBER20138TH ASWINA, 1935 MACA.No. 2096 of 2008 ( ) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 868/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR ------------- APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------- 1. K.K.MATHEW, AGED62YEARS, S/O. KOCHUVAREED, KODIYAN HOUSE, T.C.17/114, O.P.EAST FORT, PUTHENVETTUVAZHI, VIA TRICHUR -5.

2. MRS.LILLY MATHEW, AGED56YEARS, W/O. K.K.MATHEW, KODIYAN HOUSE, T.C.17/114, P.O.EAST FORT, PUTHENVETTUVAZHI, VIA TRICHUR -5.

3. MR.SHANTO MATHEW, AGED28YEARS, S/O. K.K.MATHEW, KODIYAN HOUSE, T.C.17/114 O.P. EAST FORT, PUTHENVETTUVAZHI, VIA TRICHUR -5. BY ADVS.SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ SMT.R.S.GEETHA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. B.MOHAMMED, S/O.UMMER HAJI, HIGHWAY TRANSPORT & AUTO CONSULTANT, KONKAN COMPLEXS, KANKAVADY, MANGALORE (OWNER OF KA-19/A4944LORRY).

2. NEERAJ B.SHETTY, S/O. BALAKRISHNA SHETTY, KODIBIAL HOUSE, P.O.UPPALA, KASARGOD DISTRICT, DRIVER KA-19/A4944LORRY (D/L NO.KSD/669/89).

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, PAILANDS BUILDING, 11ND FLOOR, P.M.RAO ROAD, MANGALORE -575001-KA19A4944LORRY POLICY NO.2000/1729, VALID FROM219.99 TO, 20.9.2000. PJ ...2/- ..2.. MACA.No. 2096 of 2008 ( ) ------------------------------------ 4. A.D.MELBARI, S/O. DAMODAR, NO.16, MAHAVEER, SCC, NEAR MOBILE TOWER, MOHALI, DHULE, MAHARASHTRA, (OWNER MH-18/C83TATA SUMO).

5. ASHISH, S/O. DAMODAR, NO.16, MAHAVEER, MOHALIM DHULE, MAHARASHTRA, /DRIVER MH-18/C83TATA SUMO, D/L NO.MH-18/3773/99.

6. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KALYAN BHAVAN, LANE NO.2, DHULE42400 POLICY NO.2000/382, VALID FROM, 20.4.2000 TO194.2001, MH-18/C83TATA SUMO.

7. JAIMON JOSEPH @ JAYA MOHAN, S/O. JOSEPH, C/O. SASIDHARAN, 15, HILL TOP APARTMENT, MAHATMA NAGAR, NASIK, (DRIVER MH-18/C83TATA SUMO R2 BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH R3 & 6 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON3009-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

----------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.2096 of 2008 ================= Dated this the 30th day of September 2013

JUDGMENT

------------------ S.Siri Jagan, J.

The claimants in O.P.(MV) No.868/2001 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act are the appellants herein. One Shijo Mathew died in an accident caused by the collision of two vehicles; one was a lorry and the other was a Tata Sumo jeep. Along with Shijo Mathew, another person Happy Varghese also died. The appellants who are the dependants of Shijo Mathew and the dependants of Happy Varghese filed O.P.(M.V.) Nos.868/2001 and 522/2001 respectively claiming compensation for the death of their bread winners. The two O.Ps were jointly tried and disposed of by a common award, which is under challenge in this appeal filed by the dependants of deceased Shijo Mathew. The Tribunal after considering the evidence came M.A.C.A. No.2096 of 2008 -2- to the conclusion that Ext.B2 policy was issued in favour of a Mahindra jeep, whereas, the Tata Sumo jeep against whom the claimants sought compensation was not insured with the 6th respondent insurance company. The appellants' contention is that the Tribunal did not consider the question of negligence on the part of the lorry which was actually the case of the appellants. The appellants therefore now contend that the award has to be set aside and the matter should be directed to be reconsidered with an opportunity to the appellants to adduce further evidence, if necessary.

2. We have heard the counsel for the Insurance Company as well.

3. We are not quite satisfied with the award of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has simply considered the question as to whether there was a policy for the Tata Sumo vehicle issued by the 6th respondent-insurance company. The Tribunal had noted the contention of the appellants that the accident was due to negligent driving of the lorry driven by the 2nd respondent. But on that question, no finding was M.A.C.A. No.2096 of 2008 -3- entered by the Tribunal. In the above circumstances, we are of opinion that, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the award in O.P.(M.V.) No.868/2001 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur is set aside and the O.P. is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration for considering all the contentions of the parties affording a further opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases, if necessary. The appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Sd/- K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE Shg/

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties K.K.Mathew vs B.Mohammed Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice S.Siri Jagan