Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4464
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, J
NOUSHAD – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER – Respondent
WP(C) 1936/2023
P.K.MUHAMMED
The legal heirs' liability is limited to the property devolved upon them, and the MACT has the discretion to consider factors of justice and reasonableness in executing judgments.
Headnote:
Liability - Motor Vehicle Accidents - MACT Provisions - The court discussed the vicarious liability of legal heirs under the Motor Vehicles Act and the right of the insurance company to recover amounts based on the awarded claims.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, parents of a deceased driver involved in a vehicle accident, contested a MACT ruling deeming them liable for property devolved upon them due to the driver's actions, citing no property inherited from the deceased and their old age as challenges to the ruling.
Issues: Whether the petitioners, as legal heirs, were vicariously liable for the obligations arising from the traffic accident involving the deceased driver, and if the MACT's decision regarding property attachment was justifiable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a fair determination of legal liability, particularly focusing on the concept of inheritance and vicarious liability, the interpretation of relevant MACT provisions, and the application of justice in procedural matters.
Final Decision: The court directed the MACT to decide on the application for condonation of delay within fifteen days.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are stated to have filed a review petition along with the application for condonation of delay and interim prayer in Execution Petition No.329/2022 against the award dated
30.07.2019 rendered in various O.P.(MV)s.
2. Petitioners are parents of the deceased who was driving the vehicle which met with an accident resulting into injuries and death of certain persons including the driver. Learned MACT in paragraph (143) held that petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased owner of the one part of the offending vehicle ie., motor cycle bearing No.KL-16/K-4526 and therefore would be vicariously liable to the extent of the property devolved upon them from the part of the driver. Insurance company was directed to satisfy the claim petition with the recovery rights. In paragraph 145(8) also, it has been held regarding recovery to the extent of 75% of the awarded amount and the Insurance company is now taking steps for recovering the amount. Grievance of the petitioners is that no property of the deceased devolved upon the parents, they are age-old and therefore the attachment of the property owned by them would further aggravate their vagaries.
3. Learned Government Pleader accepts notice for respondents 2 to 4 and learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the 1st respondent.
4. Paragraphs 143 and 145(8) of the award read thus:
“143. The respondents 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of the deceased owner of the one part of the offended vehicle, Motor Cycle bearing registration No.KL-16/K-4526 is vicariously liable to the extent to the property devolved upon them from the part of the driver.
8. In case the award entire amount is deposited by
2nd respondent, it is entitled to recover the 25% of the award amount with interest thereon from the 4th respondent or the entire amount is deposited with 4th resp0ondent, they are entitled to recover 75% of the award amount from the assets of original owner devolved upon 1st and 2nd respondent.”
Since the petitioners have already availed the remedy of review with application for condonation of delay and interim application on 04.01.2023, I dispose of the writ petition by issuing directions to the MACT to decide the application for condonation of delay and direction together to meet the ends of justice, in the pending review petition preferably within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE
30.7.2019 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL IN O.P.(M.V.)
NO.1477/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES Exhibit P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION E.P.
NO.333/2020 DATED 12.10.2020 IN O.P.
(M.V.) NO.1477/2014 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL ALONG WITH TRUE TYPED LEGIBLE COPY.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2022 IN E.P. NO.330/2020 IN O.P.(M.V.) 33/2015 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL Exhibit P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2022 IN E.P. NO.331/2020 IN O.P.(M.V.) 1490/2014 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL Exhibit P3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2022 IN E.P. NO.327/2020 IN O.P.(M.V.) 1311/2014 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL Exhibit P3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2022 IN E.P. NO.333/2020 IN O.P.(M.V.) 1477/2014 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL Exhibit P3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2022 IN E.P. NO.332/2020 IN O.P.(M.V.) 1491/2014 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL Exhibit P3(e) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2022 IN E.P. NO.329/2020 IN O.P.(M.V.) 1483/2014 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND
