Vinod Vs. Kadeeja Umma and ors.

Vinod vs Kadeeja Umma and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 26, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/907535

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/907535
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: M.N. Krishnan, J.
Decided On: Oct 26, 2010
Case Number: MACA.No. 1407 of 2010
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

[N.K. PATIL; H.S.KEMPANNA, JJ.] This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated: 05/05/2005 passed in MVC No. 135/2001 on the file of the Civil Judge(Sr.Dn), MACT, Maddur, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement oil compensation.

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vinod

Advocate SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, Adv.

Respondent

Kadeeja Umma and ors.

Advocate SRI.M.V.SABU, Adv.

Excerpt

[n.k. patil; h.s.kempanna, jj.] this mfa is filed u/s 173(1) of mv act against the judgment and award dated: 05/05/2005 passed in mvc no. 135/2001 on the file of the civil judge(sr.dn), mact, maddur, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement oil compensation.o r d e rm.n. krishnan, j. ........................................... m.a.c.a.no.1407 of 2010 ............................................. dated this the 26th day of october, 2010. j u d g m e n t this is an appeal preferred against the award of the claims tribunal, thrissur in . a claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of one sulaiman who died in a road accident on 7.9.2001. the tribunal awarded the legal representatives a compensation of rs.77,000/= and directed the third respondent insurance company to pay the amount and get it reimbursed from the owner. reimbursement was ordered on the ground that there was no proof regarding valid permit to ply the vehicle. 2. the learned counsel for the appellant had made available before me a copy of the permit which would indicate that there was valid permit for the vehicle from 6.11.2000 to 5.11.2005. the accident had taken place on 7.9.2001. if really the permit is correct, then one cannot hold that the vehicle was plying without a valid permit. since it is only a copy it cannot be finalised here. therefore an opportunity is given to the appellant to produce the authenticated copy so as to satisfy the conscience of the court regarding validity of the permit. so for that purpose, the matter is remitted back. 3. therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the tribunal with a direction to the appellant herein to produce authenticated copy of the permit and adduce evidence to satisfy the conscience of the court regarding existence of valid permit on the date of accident. needless to say that the insurance company can also produce documents in support of their contentions. for this limited purpose, the matter is remanded and the parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 7.12.2010. disposed of accordingly

Full Judgment

O R D E R

M.N. KRISHNAN, J.

...........................................

M.A.C.A.NO.1407 OF 2010

.............................................

Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010.

J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in . A claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of one Sulaiman who died in a road accident on 7.9.2001. The Tribunal awarded the legal representatives a compensation of Rs.77,000/= and directed the third respondent insurance company to pay the amount and get it reimbursed from the owner. Reimbursement was ordered on the ground that there was no proof regarding valid permit to ply the vehicle.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant had made available before me a copy of the permit which would indicate that there was valid permit for the vehicle from 6.11.2000 to 5.11.2005. The accident had taken place on 7.9.2001. If really the permit is correct, then one cannot hold that the vehicle was plying without a valid permit. Since it is only a copy it cannot be finalised here. Therefore an opportunity is given to the appellant to produce the authenticated copy so as to satisfy the conscience of the court regarding validity of the permit. So for that purpose, the matter is remitted back.

3. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to the appellant herein to produce authenticated copy of the permit and adduce evidence to satisfy the conscience of the court regarding existence of valid permit on the date of accident. Needless to say that the insurance company can also produce documents in support of their contentions. For this limited purpose, the matter is remanded and the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 7.12.2010.

Disposed of accordingly

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2010 Same Parties Vinod vs Kadeeja Umma and ors. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge M.N. Krishnan, J.

Land Acquisition