Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Abraham. Vs. Sajana George.

Abraham. vs Sajana George.

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 21, 2010
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/917078

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
MACA.No. 1437 of 2010
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

[MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY, J.] This writ PETITION is filed under articles '226 and 227 of constitution of India with a prayer to direct the R3 & 4 to consider the request of petitioner for issue of registration CERTIFICATE (FORM no. 10) and effect the khata in his name by entering his name BY entering his name i...

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abraham.

Advocate SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN, Adv.

Respondent

Sajana George.

Advocate SMT.P.A.REZIYA, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In
ILR2010(4)Ker467

Excerpt

[mr. justice l.narayana swamy, j.] this writ petition is filed under articles '226 and 227 of constitution of india with a prayer to direct the r3 & 4 to consider the request of petitioner for issue of registration certificate (form no. 10) and effect the khata in his name by entering his name by entering his name in k.r. and rfc as the owner/occupant in respect of land bearing sy.no.78 measuring 15 acres situated at sonnenahalli village. hesaraghatta hobli. bangalore north taluk bangalore and etc.1. this appeal is preferred against the award of the motor accidents claims tribunal, kottayam in o.p.(mv)1159/06. the claimant who sustained injuries in a road accident has been awarded a compensation of rs.11,000/- and the insurance company is directed to pay the amount and get it reimbursed from the owner cum driver, r1. aggrieved by the same the owner has come up in appeal. 2. heard the learned counsel for both the sides. the tribunal found that as per the charge sheet the two wheeler licence was valid only up to 22-9-03 and as the accident had taken place on 28.2.04 it was held that the driver did not have a valid licence and therefore directed reimbursement of the amount. along with the memorandum of appeal the appellant has produced driving licence particulars. the licence to drive a motorcycle with gear was granted to him on 24.10.91. in the reverse page there is an endorsement regarding renewal wherein it is stated that there had been a regular renewal of the licence. but that endorsement by itself does not make it possible to arrive at a decision that the two wheeler licence had been renewed by the applicant. but if there is real renewal then certainly he may not be liable to reimburse and therefore i am inclined to grant an opportunity to prove the same. 3. in the result m.a.c.a is partly allowed and the award so far as it relates to reimbursement is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the tribunal with a direction to permit the appellant herein to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of the contention of the availability of a licence on the date of accident. needless to say the insurance company can also produce relevant materials for the same in support of its contentions. parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 28.1.2011.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)1159/06. The claimant who sustained injuries in a road accident has been awarded a compensation of Rs.11,000/- and the insurance company is directed to pay the amount and get it reimbursed from the owner cum driver, R1. Aggrieved by the same the owner has come up in appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. The Tribunal found that as per the charge sheet the two wheeler licence was valid only up to 22-9-03 and as the accident had taken place on 28.2.04 it was held that the driver did not have a valid licence and therefore directed reimbursement of the amount. Along with the memorandum of appeal the appellant has produced driving licence particulars. The licence to drive a motorcycle with gear was granted to him on 24.10.91. In the reverse page there is an endorsement regarding renewal wherein it is stated that there had been a regular renewal of the licence. But that endorsement by itself does not make it possible to arrive at a decision that the two wheeler licence had been renewed by the applicant. But if there is real renewal then certainly he may not be liable to reimburse and therefore I am inclined to grant an opportunity to prove the same.

3. In the result M.A.C.A is partly allowed and the award so far as it relates to reimbursement is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit the appellant herein to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of the contention of the availability of a licence on the date of accident. Needless to say the insurance company can also produce relevant materials for the same in support of its contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28.1.2011.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial