Shamsudhin vs Anil Kumar V

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 11, 2025

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1280762

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/1280762
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice C.Pratheep Kumar
Decided On: Mar 11, 2025
Case Number: MACA/708/2014
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

Shamsudhin

Respondent

Anil Kumar V

Excerpt

.....the rider of the offending vehicle and went on to make a sweeping remark that in all accidents involving two motorcycles there will be contributory negligence from the riders of both the vehicles. such a sweeping observation was made by the tribunal solely based on wild imaginations, unsupported by any iota of evidence on record and as such the above finding is liable to be set aside. at the same time, in the light of exts.a5 to a7 documents, it is to be found that the petitioner has succeeded in proving that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle alone.6. since the tribunal has not assessed the quantumof compensation due to the petitioner, the matter requires reconsideration by the tribunal. in the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is set aside. the matter is remanded back to the tribunal for fresh disposal as per law. -5- considering the fact that, this is an o.p of 2005, the parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 15.04.2025. the tribunal is directed to dispose of the claim petition at the earliest, at any rate within a period of six months from the date fixed for the appearance of parties. the parties are permitted to raise all contentions available to them as per law, before the tribunal.sd/- c.pratheep kumar judge ads

Full Judgment

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. 708 OF 2014 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.07.2013 IN OPMV NO.1724 OF 2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL. APPELLANT: SHAMSUDHIN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.KASIMKUNJU RAWTHAR, MARABA, T.C.2/1143 (1), NEAR RAILWAY STATION, KAZHAKUTTAM. BY ADV SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS:

1 ANIL KUMAR V, VISWA BHAVAN, N.H.ROAD, KAZHAKKOOTAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 582. 2 THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.II, ST.MARY VILLA, ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011. 3 SUNITHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ST.JOSEPH PRESS BUILDING, VAZHATHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. -2- BY ADVS. G.P.SHINOD AJIT G ANJARLEKAR(K/000083/2014) GOVIND PADMANAABHAN(K/925/2010) ATUL MATHEWS(K/1675/2018) GAYATHRI S.B.(K/2005/2020) ELIZABETH VARKEY SARAH SALVY

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -3-

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11th day of March, 2025 The petitioner in OP(MV) No.1724 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal is the appellant. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal)

2. The Original Petition was filed under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.05.2005. According to the petitioner, on 14.05.2005, at about 1.30 p.m., while the petitioner was a riding a motorcycle, another motorcycle bearing Registration No.Kl-01/AC-2795 hit against the motorcycle in which the petitioner was travelling and as a result of which, he fell down and sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1st respondent is the owner and 2nd

respondent is the insurer of the offending motorcycle. The 3 rd respondent is the owner and 4 th respondent is the insurer of the motorcycle in which he was travelling.

4. In order to prove negligence against the rider of

the offending vehicle, the petitioner has produced Ext.A5 copy of the FIR in Crime No.376 of 2005 of Kazhakootam Police Station, Ext.A6 copy of the scene mahazar and Ext.A7 copy of the charge sheet in the above crime. There was no contra evidence from the side of the -4- respondents to disprove Exts.A5 to A7. In spite of that, the tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the riders of both the motorcycles and then dismissed the claim petition.

5. The law is well settled that, charge sheet filed by

the police in the crime registered in respect to the accident is prima facie evidence of negligence against the accused in the charge sheet (New India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal, 2011 (3)KLT 648). However, ignoring the above settled position of law, the Tribunal has found that the petitioner failed to prove the negligence as against the rider of the offending vehicle and went on to make a sweeping remark that in all accidents involving two motorcycles there will be contributory negligence from the riders of both the vehicles. Such a sweeping observation was made by the Tribunal solely based on wild imaginations, unsupported by any iota of evidence on record and as such the above finding is liable to be set aside. At the same time, in the light of Exts.A5 to A7 documents, it is to be found that the petitioner has succeeded in proving that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle alone.

6. Since the Tribunal has not assessed the quantum

of compensation due to the petitioner, the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal as per law. -5- Considering the fact that, this is an O.P of 2005, the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 15.04.2025. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the claim petition at the earliest, at any rate within a period of six months from the date fixed for the appearance of parties. The parties are permitted to raise all contentions available to them as per law, before the Tribunal.

Sd/- C.PRATHEEP KUMAR JUDGE ADS

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2025 Same Parties Shamsudhin vs Anil Kumar V Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice C.Pratheep Kumar