IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 27TH MAGHA, 1944 MACA NO. 1711 OF 2007 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 1411/2000 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

1 THANKAPPAN PANIKKAVALAPPIL HOUSE, VADAKKUMMURI DESOM, VARANDARAPILLY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (DECEASED – LR'S RECORDED)

2 AMMINI W/O. PANIKKAVALAPPIL THANKAPPAN VADAKKUMMURI DESOM, VARANDARAPPILLY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

(DECEASED – LR'S RECORDED)

3 VINAYAN S/O. PANIKKAVALAPPIL THANKAPPAN, VADAKKUMMURI DESOM, VARANDARAPPILLY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

4 REGHU S/O. PANIKKAVALAPPIL THANKAPPAN VADAKKUMMURI DESOM, VARANDARAPPILLY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

(APPELLANTS 3 AND 4 ARE RECORDED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED APPELLANTS 1 AND 2 AS PER ORDER DATED 16.02.2023 IN MACA 1711/2007.)

BY ADV SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 SHARAFUDDIN S/O KUNHIN, THOPPIL HOUSE, THANISSERY DESOM, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (DRIVER)

2 KUNJANNAM ANTONY (DECEASED)

W/O. ANTONY, PAYAMMEL HOUSE, NADAVARAMBA P.O., IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (OWNER)

3 THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., IRINJALAKUDA.

4 ADDL.R4 VARGHESE AGED 57 YEARS, S/O KUNJANNAM ANTONY, PAYAMMEL HOUSE, NADAVARAMBA PO, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR - 680661

5 ADDL.R5 MARY AGED 55 YEARS, D/O LATE KUNJANNAM ANTONY, PAYAMMEL HOUSE, NADAVARAMBA PO., IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR - 680661

6 ADDL.R6 KOCHUROSSY AGED 52 YEARS, D/O LATE KUNJANNAM ANTONY, PAYAMMEL HOUSE, NADAVARAMBA PO, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR - 680661

7 ADDL.R7 VERONICA AGED 49 YEARS, S/O KUNJANNAM ANTONY, PAYAMMEL HOUSE, NADAVARAMBA PO, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR – 680661

8 ADDL.R8 ELEYAMMA AGED 47 YEARS, D/O LATE KUNJANNAM ANTONY, PAYAMMEL HOUSE, NADAVARAMB PO, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR - 680661

9 ADDL.R9 BABY AGED 45 YEARS, D/O LATE KUNJANNAM ANTONY, PAYAMMEL HOUSE, NADAVARAMB PO, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR – 680661 (ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 TO 9 ARE IMPLEADED IN THE APPEAL AS PER ORDER DATED 24.11.2022 IN IA NO.1/2020.)

BY ADVS.

K.J.GLADIS SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

=========================

M.A.C.A.No. 1711 of 2007 ==========================

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2023

JUDGMENT

Interestingly, when this appeal was called today, both sides wanted remand of this matter to the learned Tribunal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that there are some errors in the claim petition filed by his clients, particularly with respect to the income of the deceased; while the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent – Insurance Company, conceded that the finding of the Tribunal, that the motor cycle ridden by the deceased did not have headlights on at 9 p.m. – being the time of the accident – is not reflected in any of the pleadings or evidence on record.

3. I notice from the Award of the Tribunal that it has dismissed OP(MV) No.1411/2000 filed by the appellants – the legal heirs of deceased Manoj, who was unfortunately killed in a road accident in the year 1999 – primarily on the ground that a police charge sheet had been filed against the deceased with the imputation that he was negligent since he was not using the headlight at 9 p.m., when his bike was involved in the accident.

4. As said above, the learned counsel for the parties are, ad idem, that there is absolutely no reason why the Tribunal should have entered into a conclusion that the deceased was operating the motor cycle without headlights and that this is not reflected in any of the evidence on record. Further, since the appellants want to amend the Original Petition, seeking enhancement of the notional income, particularly because the claim is under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, I am certain that such