Vasanth Kumari vs Ramachandran

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 30, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1358083

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/1358083
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C. Jayachandran
Decided On: Jun 30, 2023
Case Number: MACA/1565/2008

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vasanth Kumari

Respondent

Ramachandran

Excerpt

.....is the said asraf khan, who is the first respondent before the tribunal and 5th respondent herein. there is no representation for the 5th respondent before this court, although he was served by effecting paper publication.2. heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 6th respondent/insurance company. learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4, who were the claimants before the tribunal, was also heard.3. as rightly pointed out by the learned counselfor the appellant, the r.t.o. concerned was examined before the tribunal as dw2, who would vouch the fact that the first respondent - asraf khan - was the registered owner of the vehicle as on the date of accident. this evidence has been reiterated by ext.a1 reply produced before this court, as also, in the entry in ext.b7 document produced before the tribunal.4. going by s.2(30) of the motor vehicles act, 1988, 'owner' means the person in whose name a motorvehicle stands registered. in as much as categoric evidence has been adduced before this court, as also before the tribunal, that the registered owner as on the date of accident was 5th respondent herein, this court is inclined to allow the m.a.c.a. by directing the recovery of the compensation amount by the 6th respondent/insurance company from the 5th respondent/ asraf khan, in substitution of the direction of the tribunal for recovery from the appellant herein [4th respondent before the tribunal].m.a.c.a. is allowed as indicated above. sd/- c.jayachandran judge sbna/ appendix petitioner's/s exhibit: annexure a1 letter dated 01/03/2023 issued by the public information officer, rto, kollam.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2023/9TH ASHADHA, 1945 MACA NO.1565 OF 2008 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.08.20007 IN OPMV 1309/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT: VASANTH KUMARI, W/O.SASIDHARAN RESIDING AT VASANTHA BHAVAN, CHIRAKKARA, KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV SRI.HARISH GOPINATH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3:
1 RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.KUTTAN,, RESIDING AT PAYATTUVILA VEEDU,, AYATHIL, VADAKKEVILA, 2 SOBHANA AGED 46 YEARS, W/O RAMACHANDRAN, RESIDING 3 PRASANTH AGED 20 YEARS, S/O RAMACHANDRAN, RESIDING 4 PRAMEELA AGED 18 YEARS, D/O RAMACHANDRAN, RESIDING 5 ASRAF KHAN RESIDING AT H.C.QUARTERS NO.15, ASRAMAM,, KOLLAM. 6 THE DEPUTY MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., AMAR JYOTHI COMPLEX, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P PANICKER V.P.K. SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2023, THE COURT ON 30.06.2023, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.JAYACHANDRAN, J ------------------------ M.A.C.A.No.1565 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2023

J U D G M E N T

The 4th respondent in O.P(M.V).No.1309/2001 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam, jointly tried along with O.P(M.V).No.1151/2001, is the appellant herein. The award under challenge is dated 04.08.2007, which is a common award passed in the original petitions afore-referred. By virtue of the award impugned, the Tribunal directed the third

respondent/insurance company to compensate the petitioners/claimants at the first instance and to recover the same from the 4th respondent, who was deemed to be owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The compass of the appeal is quite narrow, to the effect that appellant/4th respondent was not the owner of the vehicle as on the date of accident

and that, it was the first respondent by name Asraf Khan, who was the owner at the relevant time, wherefore, the compensation is liable to be recovered from him; and not from the 4th respondent/ appellant. Appellant produced Ext.A7 registration particulars, which indicates that she became an owner of the vehicle concerned only with effect from 25.11.2000. However, that endorsement is seen handwritten, as against the other endorsements which are printed. To obviate the ambiguity, the appellant had produced before this Court a reply under the

Right      to       Information         Act     dated      01.03.2023,      along
with     I.A.No.1/2023             as    Annexure-A1         to    receive      the
additional                   document/evidence.                    Annexure-A1

specifically indicates that as per the records, the registered owner of the vehicle in question as on 12.11.2000, the date of the accident, is the said Asraf Khan, who is the first respondent before the Tribunal and 5th respondent herein. There is no representation for the 5th respondent before this Court, although he was served by effecting paper publication.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 6th respondent/insurance company. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4, who were the claimants before the Tribunal, was also heard.

3. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel

for the appellant, the R.T.O. concerned was examined before the Tribunal as DW2, who would vouch the fact that the first respondent - Asraf Khan - was the registered owner of the vehicle as on the date of accident. This evidence has been reiterated by Ext.A1 reply produced before this Court, as also, in the entry in Ext.B7 document produced before the Tribunal.

4. Going by S.2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 'owner' means the person in whose name a motor

vehicle stands registered. In as much as categoric evidence has been adduced before this Court, as also before the Tribunal, that the registered owner as on the date of accident was 5th respondent herein, this Court is inclined to allow the M.A.C.A. by directing the recovery of the compensation amount by the 6th respondent/insurance company from the 5th respondent/ Asraf Khan, in substitution of the direction of the Tribunal for recovery from the appellant herein [4th respondent before the Tribunal].

M.A.C.A. is allowed as indicated above. Sd/- C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE Sbna/ APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBIT: ANNEXURE A1 LETTER DATED 01/03/2023 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, RTO, KOLLAM.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties Vasanth Kumari vs Ramachandran Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C. Jayachandran