2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 43808
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
THE CORRESPONDENT SREENARAYANAGURU COEGE OF ENGINEERING – Appellant
Versus
MUNEER – Respondent
MACA 594/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 24TH MAGHA, 1944 MACA NO. 594 OF 2015 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 21.05.2014 IN OP(MV) NO.1239/2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA APPELLANT:
THE CORRESPONDENT, NARAYANAGURU COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MANALUMMOODU.P.O, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENTS:
1 MUNEER, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED K.P., III/336, CHARUVILA VEEDU,NEAR KURUVANI MARKET, UPANIYOOR DESOM,KALLIYOOR VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT MANALIVILA VEEDU,R.C.STREET, NEAR SPINNING MILL,BALARAMAPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK – 695 121.
(DELETED)
2 PRABHAKARAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, SINDHU NIVAS,NEAR SASTHAMCOIL,AKG NAGAR,PEROORKADA.P.O,KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695005.
(DELETED)
3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,LMS COMPOUND, NEAR MUSEUM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
4 FAROOK, S/O.BADARUDEEN,CHEKITTAVILA VEEDU,KARAKKAMANDAPAM,NEMOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695020.
(DELETED)
5 THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, NEYYATTINKARA,TRIVANDRUM-695121.
(RESPONDENTS 1,2 AND 4 ARE DELETED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.1/2023 DATED 13.2.2023)
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.595/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 24TH MAGHA, 1944 MACA NO. 595 OF 2015 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 21.05.2014 IN OP(MV) NO.1320/2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA APPELLANT:
THE CORRESPONDENT, NARAYANAGURU COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MANALUMMOODU.P.O, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENTS:
1 FAROOK, S/O.BADARUDEEN,TC.51/2906,CHEKKITAVILA VEEDU,KARIMANN DESOM,NEMOM VILLAGE,NEMOM.P.O, NOW RESIDING AT PANAVILA VEEDU, VAZHIMUKKU,ARALUMOODU,NEYYATTINKARA-69512 (DELETED)
2 LAILA, W/O FAROOK,TC.51/2906,CHEKKIAVILA VEEDU,KARIMANN DESOM,NEMOM VILLAGE,NEMOM.P.O, NOW RESIDING AT PANAVILA VEEDU, VAZHIMUKKU,ARALUMOODU,NEYYATTINKARA-69512 (DELELTED)
3 SHAN, S/O.FAROOK,NOW MAJOR, AGED 24 YEARS, TC.51/2906,CHEKKITAVILA VEEDU,KARIMANN DESOM, NEMOM VILLAGE,NEMOM.P.O,NOW RESIDING AT PANAVILA VEEDU,VAZHIMUKKU,ARALUMOODU,NEYYATTINKARA-69512 (DELETED)
4 PRABHAKARAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, SINDHU NIVAS,NEAR SASTHAMCOIL,AKG NAGAR, VAZHAYILA,PEROORKADA.P.O,KUDAPPANAKUNNU PANCHAYATH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695005.
(DELETED)
(RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE DELETED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.1/2023 DATED 13.2.2023)
5 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, LMS COMPOUND,NEAR MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
6 THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, NEYYATTINKARA,NEYYATTINKARA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695121.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR SRI.JOY JOSEPH MANAYATHU SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.594/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
‘Narayana Guru College of Engineering’ is the appellant in these cases and they impugn the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short), in Original Petitions filed by two different set of claimants seeking compensation for death and injuries, caused consequent to a road accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, which is admittedly owned by them.
2. Sri.S.Mohammed Al Rafi – learned counsel for the appellant, conceded that his client is not challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants, but only that portion of the Award which permits the Insurance Company, namely, United India Insurance Company Ltd, to recover it from his client. He explained that such an order was issued by the Tribunal on the finding that the offending vehicle did not have a valid permit, but that this was because his client was