Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V.G.RAMESH, S/O.GOKSHAPPAN versus ANNAM, W/O.LATE THOMAS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V.G.RAMESH, S/O.GOKSHAPPAN v. ANNAM, W/O.LATE THOMAS - MACA No. 2034 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 11662 (29 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA No. 2034 of 2006()

1. V.G.RAMESH, S/O.GOKSHAPPAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. ANNAM, W/O.LATE THOMAS,
... Respondent

2. ROSELY, W/O.VAKKACHAN,

3. JOSEPH, S/O.LATE THOMAS,

4. JOY, S/O.LATE THOMAS,

5. THRESSIYAMMA, W/O.VARGHESE,

6. JOHNY, S/O.LATE THOMAS,

7. VEERAPPAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN,

8. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,

For Petitioner :SRI.RENNY AUGUSTINE

For Respondent :SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN

Dated :29/06/2007

O R D E R

J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.

M.A.C.A.No.2034 OF 2006 Dated 29th June, 2007

JUDGMENT

Koshy,J

. This appeal is filed by the registered owner of the vehicle questioning the award of the Tribunal enabling the insurance company to realise the compensation from him.

2. Heard counsel for the appellant as well as contesting respondents. Claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of the motor accident victim. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.98,300/= against a claim of Rs.2,50,000/=. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 7th respondent who was driving the vehicle insured by the insurance company. The Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the compensation and realize it from the registered owner/insured as the driver was not having valid driving licence. It is the case of the appellant that he has sold the vehicle before the accident. But, it was found on evidence that transfer of the vehicle was after the date of accident. Main contention is that the driver had valid driving licence and licence was produced on 2.11.1999 vide Cf.No.21113/99, but, the Tribunal did not record and consider the same. In the above circumstances, we MACA.2034/2006 2 are of the opinion that the matter should be remanded for reconsidering the same. Counsel for the 7th respondent driver also submitted that he had a valid driving license at the time of the accident and it was produced before the Tribunal. The only question to be considered is regarding the recovery aspect by the insurance company and whether 7th respondent has a valid licence at the time of the accident. Only insurance company, driver and appellant need appear before the Tribunal and claimants need not appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall post the case on 22.8.2007 and parties are directed to take notice of the same for their appearance. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. J.B.KOSHY

JUDGE

K.P.BALACHANDRAN

JUDGE

tks


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.