High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeals allowed in part; remanded to TAC Kollam...
MACA Nos. 432/2007 and Connected Cases
Case / Petition Number:MACA Nos. 432/2007 and connected cases; MACA 2297/2018; MACA 2298/2018; MACA 2299/2018; MACA 2306/2018; MACA 2310/2018; MACA 2315/2018; MACA 2316/2018; MACA 2349/2018; MACA 2379/2018; MACA 2403/2018; MACA 2620/2017
Neutral Citation:/
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P. D. Rajan
- Judgment Date
- 2018-10-26
- Court Decision / Holding
- The dismissal of OP(MV) nos. 926/2010, 384/2010, 1102/2010, 1552/2010, 1100/2010, 555/2011, 21/2011, 1014/2012, 431/2012, 843/2012, 433/2012 and 619/2014 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam for fresh consideration. The petitioners are directed to implead the owner and insurer of the police jeep KL-01/AQ-7063 as a party; the Indian Oil Corporation is not a necessary party as per the Public Liability Policy. The tribunal shall provide notice and allow written statements; both sides may lead evidence. The proceedings shall be held on 14.02.2019.
- Final Disposition
- Appeals allowed in part; remanded to TAC Kollam for fresh consideration; directions for impleadment of police jeep owner/insurer; Indian Oil Corp. not necessary party under Public Liability Insurance Act; formal notices and evidence permitted on remand.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Sajeev (MACA 432/2007)
- Vidya Lakshmi
- Anandu Sunil
- Aromal Sunil
- Seerapani
- Hymavathy
- Jayalekshmi
- Vishnu Prasad
- Hari Prasad
- Gopala Kurup
- Raseena
- Binshad
- Midhilaj
- Bismi
- Sheeja
- Sulfath
- Sumiya Samad
- Subeena Samad
- Fathima Kunju
- S Shamna
- Milan Moni Das
- Paresh Moni Das
- Pankaj Moni Das
- Golak Moni Das
- Prakash Moni Das
- Geetha Mol
- Gopala Pillai
- Vinayak
- Karthik
- Aswathi
- Sumathi Amma
- Dipali Das
- Rinki Das
- Ritu Das
- Uttam Das
- Rakhi (Uma) Das
- Sumathi Amma
- Raseena
- Binshad
- Midhilaj
- Bismi
- Dipali Das
- Rinki Das
- Ritu Das
- Uttam Das
- Rakhi (Uma) Das
- Geetha Mol
- Gopala Pillai
Respondents
- Abdul Rahman Kunju Mampara Thekkathil
- Abdul Manaf S/O Abdul Kareem
- The Manager Representing Royal Sundaram General Insurance Ltd.
- Sibdeswaran S/O Rajamanikyam
- The Divisional Manager Representing Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
- Senthil Kumar S/O Karunakaran
- The Chief Secretary Government of Kerala
- The General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd
- The Regional Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd
- (Addl respondents impleaded in various IA)
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Pratheesh P
- • Reny Anto
- • Archana
Counsels for Respondents
- • M.V. Anandan
- • A.R. George
- • Jacob Mathew
- • Ziyad Rahman
- • Joson Manavalan
- • K. John Mathai
- • Kuryan Thomas
- • ParvathY Kottol
- • Paulose C. Abraham
- • P. Gopinath
Case Synopsis & Summary
These set of Motor Accidents Claims Appeals arise from multiple awards of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, and concern a fatal LPG tanker incident on 31-12-2009 on the Kollam–Alappuzha NH road at Karunagappally. A LPG tanker KA01AE2119 collided with Maruthi car KL 23 B 5418; the gas capsule detached, its valve damaged, gas leaked and subsequently exploded during rescue operations. The Tribunal dismissed the petitions on the ground that the accident did not occur in a public road due to use of a motor vehicle, resulting in no liability. The High Court, in a consolidated judgment, reconsiders whether the accident arose out of the use of a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and whether the insurer of the tanker (and other insurers) may be liable. Key legal questions include the interpretation of “use” and “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” (Sections 165, 92-A, MV Act; and Section 4/6 of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991). The Court cites decisions like Shivaji Dayanu Patil and Kalim Khan to support a broader interpretation of “use,” including stationary periods, and emphasizes the beneficial legislative object to compensate victims. The judgment remits the matter to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam for fresh consideration, with directions to implead the police jeep’s owner/insurer and to treat Indian Oil Corp. as not a necessary party, given the Public Liability Insurance policy in force.
Provisions of Law Cited
Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939Section 4 of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991Section 6 of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Wider connotation of the term ‘use’ of a motor vehicle, including stationary periods, as recognized in Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More and corroborated by Kalim Khan and others v. Fimidabee and others; the interpretation aims at a beneficial object of the statute to protect injury victims.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellants contended that the LPG tanker explosion was a consequence of the tanker’s collision with a Maruthi car on a public road, with the gas capsule detaching and exploding during the rescue, all linked to the use of the motor vehicle. They argued that the insurer of the tanker must pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, with the Public Liability Insurance policy supporting immediate relief, and that the officer-in-charge of the public rescue action (police jeep) may share liability; the tribunal erred in discounting the causal connection to use of the vehicle.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argued that the accident’s immediate cause began with the Maruthi car’s collision with the tanker and that the explosion resulted from a later event (spark from a police jeep). They contended the insurer of the tanker is not liable for the LPG explosion, and that public liability or a separate policy should cover victims; they urged that the tribunal’s reliance on the ‘use’ concept be constrained by the need for direct nexus and that further impleading of additional parties is unnecessary.
Cited Precedents (8)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More | 1991 3 SCC 530 | Positive | Used to expand the meaning of ‘use’ to include stationary periods and non-moving phases, supporting a broad interpretation of ‘arising out of the use’. |
| Kalim Khan and others v. Fimidabee and others | 2018 7 SCC 687 | Positive | Cited to reinforce that ‘use’ can have a wider, non-movement-related connotation consistent with protective statutory aims. |
| Kanhei Rana v. Gangadhar Swain | . | Positive | Cited to illustrate trans-judicial expansion of ‘use’ beyond mere movement, as acknowledged by other jurisdictions. |
| Elliott v. Grey | . | Mentioned Only | Cited within the Patil framework; not a controlling authority in this decision. |
| Pushpa Rani Chopra v. Anokha Singh | . | Mentioned Only | Cited as part of the Patil discussion on the interpretation of ‘use’. |
| Karnataka SRTC v. Sangappa Satalingappa Goudar | . | Mentioned Only | Cited within the doctrinal discussion of ‘use’ expansion. |
| Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suman Navnath Rajguru | . | Mentioned Only | Cited in support of insurance-related considerations in the SA. |
| . | . | Positive | General reference to authorities on the scope of ‘arising out of the use’ and the protective legislative intent. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against MACA Nos. 432/2007 and Connected Cases and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN**
**FRIDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1940**
## **M.A.C.A.No. 432 of 2017**
**AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 926/2010 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM**
## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:**
**SAJEEV AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.SHAJAHAN, PUTHENVEETTIL, KIZHAKKATHIL, PUNNAKULAM, KS PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT**
**BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.RENY ANTO SRI.H.SAJI**
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU MAMPARA THEKKETHIL, MARU SOUTH, ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM**
- **2 ABDUL MANAF S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, MANAZ MANZIL, MEMANA, OACHIRA, KOLLAM**
- **3 THE MANAGER REPRESENTING ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE LTD.,SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46 WHITE ROAD, ROYAL PETTAH, CHENNAI-14**
- **4 SIBDESWARAN S/O.RAJAMANIKYAM, HOUSE NO.370, CHENADAMANGALAM P.O.,GANDHIPURAM EAST, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU**
- **5 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER REPRESENTING THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. D.O.90A,THURAYUR ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 2
- **6 SENTHIL KUMAR**
**S/O.KARUNAKARAN, NO.KPN EXTENSION, BANGALORE, NOW RESIDING AT NEW NO.6/676(OLD NO.3/837) PHONE VIZHALA NAGAR,TRICHI MAIN ROAD, NAMAKKAL POST, \MULAI NAGAR, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT,TAMIL NADU**
- **7 THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**
**8 THE GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, PANAMPILLI AVENUE, PANAMPILLI NAGAR, COCHIN-682036.**
*** ADDL 8TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED, 21.3.2018 IN I.A NO.509/2018.**
**9 THE REGIONAL MANAGER M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, M.G ROAD, COCHIN, PIN-682016.**
- **ADDL 9TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 31.5.2018 IN I.A NO.1719/2018.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.M.V ANANDAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.R.GEORGE SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) AND SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.P.GOPINATH SMT.K.S.SANTHI**
**THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.10.2018, ALONG WITH [MACA.2297/2018, MACA.2298/2018, MACA.2299/2018, MACA.2306/2018, MACA.2310/2018, MACA.2315/2018, MACA.2316/2018, MACA.2349/2018, MACA.2379/2018, MACA.2403/2018 & MACA.2620/2017] THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 3
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN**
**FRIDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1940**
## **M.A.C.A.No. 2620 of 2017**
**AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1014/2012 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM DATED 28-12-2016**
## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 4:**
**1 RASEENA W/O. BIJU, AGED 32 YEARS, BINSHAD MANZIL, PUTHENTHERUVU P.O,KARUNAGAPPALLY,KOLLAM DISTRICT.**
**2 BINSHAD S/O. BIJU, AGED 18 YEARS, BINSHAD MANZIL, PUTHENTHERUVU P.O,KARUNAGAPPALLY,KOLLAM DISTRICT.**
- **3 MIDHILAJ**
**S/O. BIJU,AGED 17 YEARS, BINSHAD MANZIL, PUTHENTHERUVU P.O,KARUNAGAPPALLY,KOLLAM DISTRICT. (MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT)**
- **4 BISMI**
**D/O. BIJU, AGED 15 YEARS, BINSHAD MANZIL, PUTHENTHERUVU P.O,KARUNAGAPPALLY,KOLLAM DISTRICT. (MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT)**
**BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.RENY ANTO SRI.H.SAJI**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
**1 ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU MAMPARA THEKKATHIL, MARU SOUTH, ALUMKADAVU P.O,KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 690 573.**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 4
- **2 ABDUL MANAF S/O. ABDUL KAREEM, MANAZ MANZIL, MEMANA, OACHIRA,KOLLAM- 690 526.**
- **3 THE MANAGER REPRESENTING ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE LTD, SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46 WHITE ROAD, ROYAL PETTAH, CHENNAI - 14.**
- **4 SIBDESWARAN S/O. RAJAMANIKYAM, HOUSE NO.370, CHENDAMANGALAM P.O, GANDHIPURAM EAST, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU - 637 409.**
- **5 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER REPRESENTING THE M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, D.O 90A, THURAYUR ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU - 637 001.**
**6 SENTHIL KUMAR S/O. KARUNAKARAN, NO.KPN EXTENSION, BANGALORE, NOW RESIDING AT NEW NO.6/676 (OLD NO.3/837) VIZHALA NAGAR, TRICHI MAIN ROAD, NAMAKKAL POST, MULAI NAGAR, NAMAKKAL, TAMILNADU - 637 001.**
- **7 THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.**
**8 * ADDL R8 : THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MANNARSI TRANSPORT, 6/1172, PARAMATHI ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU-637001.**
- **IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL 8TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 21.12.2017 IN I.A NO.4766/17 IN MACA 2620/17.**
- **9 *ADDL R9 :THE GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, PANAMPILLI AVENUE, PANAMPILLI NAGAR, COCHIN-682036.**
*** IS IMPLEADED AS THE ADDL. 9TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 21.3.2018 IN I.A NO. 485/2018 IN MACA 2620/17.**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 5
**10 * ADDL. R10 : THE REGIONAL MANAGER M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, M.G ROAD, COCHIN, PIN-682016. * IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.10TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 31.5.2018 IN I.A NO.1721/18 IN MACA 2620/18.**
**BY ADVS. SRI. M.V.ANANDAN, SR.GOVERMENT PLEADER SRI.A.R.GEORGE SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRIP.GOPINATH SRI.ZIYAD RAHMAN**
**THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.10.2018, ALONG WITH [ MACA 432/2017, MACA.2297/2018, MACA.2298/2018, MACA.2299/2018, MACA.2306/2018, MACA.2310/2018, MACA.2315/2018, MACA.2316/2018, MACA.2349/2018, MACA.2379/2018 & MACA.2403/2018 ], THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 6
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN**
**FRIDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1940**
## **M.A.C.A.No. 2297 of 2018**
**AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 433/2012 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOLLAM DATED 28-12-2016**
## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:**
|**1**|**VIDHYA LAKSHMI**|
|---|---|
||**AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. SUNIL KUMAR, AALUMMOOTTIL,**|
||**CHERIYAZHEEKAL P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY,**|
||**KOLLAM 690 573.**|
|**2**|**ANANDU SUNIL**|
||**AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. SUNIL KUMAR,**|
||**AALUMMOOTTIL, CHERIYAZHEEKAL P.O,**|
||**KARUNAGAPPALLY,**|
||**KOLLAM 690 573.**|
|**3**|**AROMAL SUNIL**|
||**AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. SUNIL KUMAR,**|
||**AALUMMOOTTIL, CHERIYAZHEEKAL P.O,**|
||**KARUNAGAPPALLY,**|
||**KOLLAM 690 573.**|
|**4**|**SEERAPANI**|
||**AGED 78 YEARS,S/O. PAPPU, AALUMMOOTTIL,**|
||**CHERIYAZHEEKAL P.O,**|
||**KARUNAGAPPALLY,KOLLAM 690 573.**|
|**5**|**HYMAVATHY AGED 74 YEARS**|
||**W/O. SEERAPANI, AALUMMOOTTIL,**|
||**CHERIYAZHEEKAL P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM 690 573.**|
||**BY ADVS.**|
||**SRI.PRATHEESH.P**|
||**SMT.RENY ANTO**|
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 7
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU MAMPARA THEKKATHIL, MARU SOUTH, ALUMKADAVU P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM 690 573.**
- **2 ABDUL MANAF S/O. ABDUL KAREEM, MANAZ MANZIL, MEMANA, OACHIRA,KOLLAM 690 526.**
- **3 THE MANAGER REPRESENTING ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE LTD, SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46 WHITE ROAD, ROYAL PETTAH, CHENNAI 600 014**
- **4 SIBDESWARAN S/O. RAJAMANIKYAM, HOUSE NO.370, CHENADAMANGALAM P.O, GANDHIPURAM EAST, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU 637 001.**
- **5 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER REPRESENTING THE M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. D.O 90A, THURAYUR ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU 637 001.**
- **6 SRI. SENTIL KUMAR S/O. KARUNAKARAN, NO. KPN EXTENSION, BANGALORE,NOW RESIDING AT NEW NO. 6/676 (OLD NO. 3/837)VIZHALA NAGAR, TRICHI MAIN ROAD, NAMAKKAL POST, MULAI NAGAR, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU 637 001.**
- **7 THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001.**
- **8 * ADDL R8. THE GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, PANAMPILLI AVENUE, PANAMPILLI NAGAR, COCHIN 682036**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 8
**9 * ADDL R9. THE REGIONAL MANAGER M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., M.G. ROAD, COCHIN, PIN - 682 016. (ADDL.8TH AND 9TH RESPONDENTS ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19/9/18 IN IA NO.2785/2018)**
_**BY ADVS.**_ **M.V.ANANDAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.JACOB MATHEW SRI.A.R.GEORGE SRI.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM**
**THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.10.2018, ALONG WITH [MACA.432/2017, MACA.2298/2018, MACA.2299/2018, MACA.2306/2018, MACA.2310/2018, MACA.2315/2018, MACA.2316/2018, MACA.2349/2018, MACA.2379/2018, MACA.2403/2018 & MACA.2620/2017] THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 9
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN**
**FRIDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1940**
**M.A.C.A.No. 2298 of 2018**
**AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1552/2010 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM DATED 28-12-2016**
## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:**
**1 JAYALEKSHMI W/O THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 47 YEARS, 'AMRUTHALAYAM', ANAYADI P.O., SOORANAD NORTH, KOLLAM-690561. 2 VISHNU PRASAD S/O.THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 27 YEARS, 'AMRUTHALAYAM', ANAYADI P.O., SOORANAD NORTH, KOLLAM-690561. 3 HARI PRASAD S/O.THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 23 YEARS, 'AMRUTHALAYAM', ANAYADI P.O., SOORANAD NORTH, KOLLAM-690561. 4 GOPALA KURUP S/O.RAMAN NAIR, AGED 89 YEARS, 'AMRUTHALAYAM', ANAYADI P.O., SOORANAD NORTH, KOLLAM-690561.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.K.S.ARCHANA SMT.RENY ANTO**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 10
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU MAMPAPRA THEKKATHIL, MARU SOUTH, ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690573**
- **2 ABDUL MANAF S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, MANAZ MANZIL, MEMANA, OACHIRA, KOLLAM-690526.**
- **3 THE MANAGER REPRESENTING ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE LTD. SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46 WHITE ROAD, ROYAL PETTAH, CHENNAI-600014.**
- **4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MANNARSI TRANSPORT, 6/1172, PARAMATHI ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU-637001.**
- **5 SIBDESWARAN S/O.RAJAMANIKYAN, HOUSE NO.370, CHENADAMANGALM P.O., GANDHIPURAM EAST, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU-637001.**
- **6 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER REPRESENTING THE M/S.ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. D.O.90A, THURAYUR ROAD, TAMIL NADU-637001.**
- **7 SRI.SENTHIL KUMAR S/O.KARUNAKARAN, NO.KPN EXTENSION, BANGALORE, NOW RESIDING AT NEW NO.6/676 (OLD NO.3/837)VIZHALA NAGAR, TRICHI MAIN ROAD, NAMAKKAL POST, MULAI NAGAR, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU-637001.**
- **8 THE CHEIF SECRATARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 11
|**9**|*** ADDL R9. THE GENERAL MANAGER**|
|---|---|
||**INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD,**|
||**PANAMPILLI AVENUE,**|
||**PANAMPILLI NAGAR, COCHIN 682036**|
|**10**|*** ADDL R10. THE REGIONAL MANAGER**|
||**M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,**|
||**M.G. ROAD, COCHIN, PIN - 682 016.**|
||**(ADDL. 9TH AND 10TH RESPONDENTS ARE IMPLEADED AS PER**|
||**ORDER DATED 19/9/18 IN IA NO.2786/2018)**|
**BY ADVS. M.V.ANANDAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.JACOB MATHEW SRI.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.A.R.GEORGE**
**THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.10.2018, ALONG WITH [MACA 432/2017, MACA.2297/2018, MACA.2299/2018, MACA.2306/2018, MACA.2310/2018, MACA.2315/2018, MACA.2316/2018, MACA.2349/2018, MACA.2379/2018, MACA.2403/2018 & MACA.2620/2017] THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 12
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
# **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN**
**FRIDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1940**
## **M.A.C.A.No. 2299 of 2018**
**AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 843/2012 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM DATED 28-12-2016**
## **APPELLANT/PETITIONERS:**
**1 RASHEEDA W/O.RASHEED, AGED 34 YEARS, PARAKKULATHIL KIZHAKKATHIL, THODIYOOR KIZHAKKATHIL, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690518**
**2 RAIHANA D/O.RASHEED, AGED 8 YEARS, PARAKKULATHIL KIZHAKKATHIL, THODIYOOR KIZHAKKATHIL, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690518 (MINOR REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST APPELLANT, HER MOTHER). 3 SUBAIR KUTTY S/O.MUHAMMED KASSIM AGED 68 YEARS, SAJEEV MANZIL, PULIYYOR VANCI NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690518.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.RENY ANTO SRI.H.SAJI**
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:**
**1 ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU MAMPARA THEKKATHIL, MARU SOUTH, ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690573.**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 13
- **2 ABDUL MANAF S/O.ABDUL KAREEM MANAZ MANZIL, MEMANA, OACHIRA, KOLLAM-690526.**
- **3 THE MANAGER REPRESENTING ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE LTD. SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46 WHITE ROAD, ROYAL PETTAH, CHENNAI-600014.**
- **4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR . MANNARSI TRNASPORT, 6/1172, PARAMATHI ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU-637001**
- **5 SIBDESWARAN S/O.RAJAMANIKYAM, HOUSE NO.370, CHENADAMANGALAM P.O., GANDHIPURAM EAST, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU-637001.**
- **6 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER REPRESENTING THE M/S.ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. D.O.90A, THURAYUR ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU-637001.**
**7 SRI.SENTHIL KUMAR S/O.KARUNAKARAN, NO.KPN EXTENSION, BANGALORE, NOW RESIDIGN AT NEW NO.6/676 (OLD NO.3/837) VIZHALA NAGAR, TRICHI MAIN ROAD, NAMAKKAL POST, MULAI NAGAR, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU-637001.**
- **8 THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM, PIN-695001.**
- **9 * ADDL R9. THE GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, PANAMPILLI AVENUE, PANAMPILLI NAGAR, COCHIN 682036**
**10 * ADDL R10. THE REGIONAL MANAGER M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., M.G. ROAD, COCHIN, PIN - 682 016.**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 14
***(ADDL.9TH AND 10TH RESPONDENTS ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19/9/18 IN IA NO.2787/2018 IN 2299/18)***
**BY ADVS. R8.SRI.M.V.ANANDAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3.SRI.JACOB MATHEW R6.SRI.A.R.GEORGE R9.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.P.GOPINATH SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.P.GOPINATH**
**THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.10.2018, ALONG WITH [MACA.432/2017, MACA.2297/2018, MACA.2298/2018, MACA.2306/2018, MACA.2310/2018, MACA.2315/2018, MACA.2316/2018, MACA.2349/2018, MACA.2379/2018, MACA.2403/2018 & MACA.2620/2017] THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 15
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN**
**FRIDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1940**
## **M.A.C.A.No. 2306 of 2018**
**AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1102/2010 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOLLAM**
**APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3:**
**1 SHEEJA W/O. LATE NAZAR, AGED 33 YEARS, THAZHOOR KIZHAKKATHIL, KADATHUR P.O., THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 501. 2 MUHAMMED UBAID (MINOR) S/O. LATE NAZAR, AGED 10 YEARS, THAZHOOR KIZHAKKATHIL, KADATHUR P.O., THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 501. (REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT) 3 PATHUMMA BEEVI @ FATHIMA BEEVI W/O. SULAIMAN KUNJU, AGED 63 YEARS, THAZHOOR KIZHAKKATHIL, KADATHUR P.O., THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 501. BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.RENY ANTO SRI.H.SAJI**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 16
## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU MAMPARA THEKKATHIL, MARU SOUTH, ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690573**
- **2 ABDUL MANAF S/O. ABDUL KAREEM, MANAZ MANZIL, MEMANA, OACHIRA, KOLLAM-690526**
- **3 THE MANAGER REPRESENTING ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE LTD., SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46 WHITE ROAD, ROYAL PETTAH, CHENNAI - 14.**
- **4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MANNARSI TRANSPORT, 6/1172, PARAMATHI ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU-637001**
- **5 SIBDESWARAN S/O. RAJAMANIKYAM, HOUSE NO. 370, CHENDAMANGALAM P.O., GANDHIPURAM EAST, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU-637 001**
- **6 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER REPRESENTING THE M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. D.O.90A, THURAYUR ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU-637001**
**7 SRI. SENTHIL KUMAR S/O. KARUNAKARAN, NO. KPN EXTENSION, BANGALORE, NOW RESIDING AT NEW NO. 6/676 (OLD NO. 3/837) VIZHALA NAGAR, TRICHI MAIN ROAD, NAMALLAL POST, MULAI NAGAR, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU - 673 001.**
- **8 THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.**
- **9 * ADDL R9**
**THE GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PANAMPILLI AVENUE, PANAMPILLI NAGAR, COCHIN - 682 036.**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 17
**10 * ADDL R10**
**THE REGIONAL MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., M.G.ROAD, COCHIN, PIN - 682 016. *ADDL. RESPONDENTS 9 AND 10 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 19/09/2018 IN IA 2798/2018.***
**BY ADVS. R8.SRI.M.V.ANANDAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER R9.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R3.SRI.JACOB MATHEW R6.SRI.A.R.GEORGE R10.SRI.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.P.GOPINATH**
**THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.10.2018, ALONG WITH [ MACA 432/2017, MACA.2297/2018, MACA.2298/2018, MACA.2299/2018, MACA.2310/2018, MACA.2315/2018, MACA.2316/2018, MACA.2349/2018, MACA.2379/2018, MACA.2403/2018 & MACA.2620/2017], THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 18
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN**
**FRIDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1940**
## **M.A.C.A.No. 2310 of 2018**
**AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 21/2011 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM DATED 28-12-2016**
## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:**
|**1**|**SULFATH**|
|---|---|
||**W/O. ABDUL SAMAD, AGED 45 YEARS,**|
||**'VALIYATHU VEEDU', NEELIKULAM,**|
||**K.S.PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY,**|
||**KOLLAM-690518.**|
|**2**|**SUMIYA SAMAD**|
||**S/O.ABDUL SAMAD,AGED 28 YEARS,**|
||**'VALIYATHU VEEDU',NEELIKULAM, K.S.PURAM P.O.,**|
||**KARUNAGAPPALLY,KOLLAM-690518.**|
|**3**|**SUBEENA SAMAD**|
||**S/O.ABDUL SAMAD,AGED 21 YEARS,**|
||**'VALIYATHU VEEDU',NEELIKULAM,**|
||**K.S.PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY,**|
||**KOLLAM-690518.**|
|**4**|**FATHIMA KUNJU**|
||**W/O.ALIKUNJU, AGED 72 YEARS,**|
||**'VALIYATHU VEEDU',NEELIKULAM,**|
||**K.S.PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY,**|
||**KOLLAM-690518.**|
||**BY ADVS.**|
||**SRI.PRATHEESH.P**|
||**SMT.RENY ANTO**|
||**SRI.H.SAJI**|
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 19
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU, MAMPARA THEKKATHIL, MARU SOUTH, ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690573.**
- **2 ABDUL MANAF S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, MANAZ MANZIL, MEMANA, OACHIRA, KOLLAM-690526**
- **3 THE MANAGER REPRESENTING ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE LTD., SUNDRAM TOWERS, 46 WHITE ROAD, ROYAL PETTAH, CHENNAI-600014.**
- **4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MANNARSI TRANSPORT, 6/1172, PARAMATHI ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU-637001.**
- **5 SIBDESWARAN S/O.RAJAMANIKYAM, HOUSE NO.370, CHENDAMANGALAM P.O., GANDHIPURAM EAST, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU-637001.**
- **6 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER REPRESENTING THE M/S.ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. D.O.90A, THURAYUR ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU-637001.**
- **7 SRI.SENTHIL KUMAR S/O.KARUNAKARAN, NO.KPN EXTENSION, BANGALORE, NOW RESIDING AT NEW NO.6/676 (OLD NO.3/837) VIZHALA NAGAR, TRICHI MAIN ROAD, NAMAKKAL POST, MULAI NAGAR, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU-637001.**
**8 THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.**
- **9 * ADDL R9 THE GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. PANAMPILLY AVENUE PANAMPILLY NAGAR COCHIN-682036**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 20
**10 * ADDL. R10 THE REGIONAL MANAGER M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE LTD M.G ROAD COCHIN -682016 *ADDL RESPONDENTS 9 AND 10 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 19/09/2018 IN IA 2749/2018.***
**BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.ANANDAN,SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JACOB MATHEW SRI.A.R.GEORGE SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.P.GOPINATH**
**THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.10.2018, ALONG WITH [MACA 432/2017, MACA.2297/2018, MACA.2298/2018, MACA.2299/2018, MACA.2306/2018, MACA.2315/2018, MACA.2316/2018, MACA.2349/2018, MACA.2379/2018, MACA.2403/2018 & MACA.2620/2017], THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 21
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN**
**FRIDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1940**
## **M.A.C.A.No. 2315 of 2018**
**AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 555/2011 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM**
## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:**
|**1**|**SHAMNA,**|
|---|---|
||**W/O LATE.ASHARAF,**|
||**AGED 29 YEARS, PLAVILA PADEETTATHIL,**|
||**KADATHUR, K.S.PURAM P.O.,**|
||**KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM.**|
|**2**|**MUHAMMED ARSHAD (MINOR)**|
||**S/O.LATE ASHARAF,AGED 10 YEARS,**|
||**PLAVILA PADEETTATHIL,KADATHUR,**|
||**K.S.PURAM P.O.,**|
||**KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM.**|
||**(REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, 1ST APPELLANT)**|
|**3**|**HASSAN KUNJU**|
||**S/O. MYTHEEN KUNJU,**|
||**AGED 77 YEARS,**|
||**PLAVILA PADEETTATHIL,**|
||**KADATHUR, K.S.PURAM P.O.,**|
||**KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM.**|
|**4**|**SUBAIDA WO.HASSAN KUNJU**|
||**AGED 56 YEARS,**|
||**PLAVILA PADEETTATHIL,**|
||**KADATHUR, K.S.PURAM P.O.,**|
||**KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM.**|
||**BY ADVS.**|
||**SRI.PRATHEESH.P**|
||**SMT.RENY ANTO**|
||**SRI.H.SAJI**|
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 22
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU MAMPARA THEKKATHIL, MARU SOUTH, ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690573.**
- **2 ABDUL MANAF S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, MANAZ MANZIL, MEMANA, OACHIRA, KOLLAM-690526.**
- **3 THE MANAGER REPRESENTING ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE LTD., SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46 WHITE ROAD, ROYAL PETTAH, CHENNAI-600014.**
- **4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MANNARSI TRANSPORT 6/1172, PARAMATHI ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU- 637001.**
- **5 SIBDESWARAN S/O.RAJAMANIKYAM, HOUSE NO.370, CHNADAMANGALAM P.O., GANDHIPURAM FAST, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU-637001.**
- **6 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER REPRESENTING THE M/S.ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. D.O.90A, THURAYUR ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU-637001.**
- **7 SRI.SENTHIL KUMAR S/O.KARUNAKARAN, NO.KPN EXTENSION, BANGALORE, NOW RESIDING AT NEW NO.6/676 (OLD NO.3/837)VIZHALA NAGAR, TRICHI MAIN ROAD, NAMAKKAL POST, MULAI NAGAR, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU-637 001.**
- **8 THE CHEIF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.**
- **9 *ADDL.R 9 THE GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.PANAMPILLI AVENUE,PANAMPILLI NAGAR COCHIN 682016**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 23
**10 *ADDL.R 10 THE REGIONAL MANAGER M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,M.G ROAD COCHIN 682016 (ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19/9/2018 IN IA NO.2801/18 IN MACA 2315/18)**
**BY ADVS. SRIM.V.ANANDAN , SR.GOVERMENT PLEADER SRI.JACOB MATHEW SRI.A.R.GEORGE SRI.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.P.GOPINATH**
**THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.10.2018, ALONG WITH [MACA 432/2017, MACA.2297/2018, MACA.2298/2018, MACA.2299/2018, MACA.2306/2018, MACA.2310/2018, MACA.2316/2018, MACA.2349/2018, MACA.2379/2018, MACA.2403/2018 & MACA.2620/2017], THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 24
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN**
**FRIDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1940**
## **M.A.C.A.No. 2316 of 2018**
**AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1100/2010 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM DATED 28-12-2016**
## **APPELLANTS:**
**SUMATHI AMMA W/O. PRABHAKARAN NAIR, AGED 58 YEARS, SAAFALYAM", THEVANNOOR P.O, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.RENY ANTO SRI.H.SAJI**
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:**
**1 ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU MAMPARA THEKKATHIL, MARU SOUTH, ALUMKADAVU P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY,KOLLAM 690 573.**
- **2 ABDUL MANAF S/O. ABDUL KAREEM, MANAZ MANZIL, MEMANA, OACHIRA, KOLLAM 690 526.**
- **3 THE MANAGER REPRESENTING ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE LTD, SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46 WHITE ROAD, ROYAL PETTAH, CHENNAI 600 014.**
- **4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MANNARSI TRANSPORT, 6/1172, PARAMATHI ROAD, NAMAKKAL,TAMIL NADU 637 001**
- **5 SIBDESWARAN S/O RAJAMANIKYAM, HOUSE NO. 370 CHENDAMANGALAM P.O, GANDHIPURAM EAST, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU 637 001.**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 25
- **6 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER REPRESENTING THE M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, D.O 90A, THURAYUR ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU 637 001.**
- **7 SRI. SENTHIL KUMAR**
**S/O. KARUNAKARAN, NO. KPN EXTENSION, BANGALORE, NOW RESIDING AT NEW NO. 6/676 (OLD NO. 3/837) VIZHALA NAGAR, TRICHI MAIN ROAD, NAMAKKAL POST, MULAI NAGAR, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU 637 001.**
- **8 THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001.**
- **9 *ADDL R9 : THE GENERAL MANAGER , INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD,PANAMPILLI AVENUE PANAMPILLI NAGAR,COCHIN 682036**
- **10 * ADDL R10 :THE REGIONAL MANAGER M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.MG ROAD COCHIN 682016 ( * ADDL R9 AND ADDL R10 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19/9/2018 IN IA NO.2802/18 IN MACA 2316/2018)**
**BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.ANANDAN , SR.GOVERMENT PLEADER SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.JACOB MATHEW SRI.A.R.GEORGE SRI.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.P.GOPINATH**
**THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.10.2018, ALONG WITH [MACA 432/2017, MACA.2297/2018, MACA.2298/2018, MACA.2299/2018, MACA.2306/2018, MACA.2310/2018, MACA.2315/2018, MACA.2349/2018, MACA.2379/2018, MACA.2403/2018 & MACA.2620/2017] THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 26
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN**
**FRIDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1940**
## **M.A.C.A.No. 2349 of 2018**
**AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 384/2010 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM DATED 28-12-2016**
## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:**
|**1**|**GEETHA MOL**|
|---|---|
||**W/O. PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, 'VALAKKATHU**|
||**HOUSE', KOTTAKKAKOM, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 583.**|
|**2**|**GOPALA PILLAI**|
||**AGED 94 YEARS, S/O. GOVINDA PILLAI, 'VALAKKATHU**|
||**HOUSE', KOTTAKKAKOM, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 583.**|
|**3**|**VINAYAK**|
||**S/O. PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED 23 YEARS, 'VALAKKATHU**|
||**HOUSE', KOTTAKKAKOM,**|
||**CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 583.**|
|**4**|**KARTHIK**|
||**S/O. PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED 23 YEARS, 'VALAKKATHU**|
||**HOUSE', KOTTAKKAKOM, CHAVARA P.O.,**|
||**KOLLAM - 691 583.**|
|**5**|**ASWATHI**|
||**D/O. GEETHA MOL, AGED 22 YEARS, 'VALAKKATHU HOUSE',**|
||**KOTTAKKAKOM,**|
||**CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 583.**|
|**6**|**ANU**|
||**D/O. GEETHA MOL, AGED 17 YEARS, 'VALAKKATHU HOUSE',**|
||**KOTTAKKAKOM, CHAVARA P.O.,**|
||**KOLLAM - 691 583.**|
||**(MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, 1ST PETITIONER)**|
||**BY ADVS.**|
||**SRI.PRATHEESH.P**|
||**SMT.RENY ANTO**|
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 27
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & 5 TO 8:**
- **1 ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU MAMPARA THEKKATHIL, MARU SOUTH, ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 690 573.**
- **2 ABDUL MANAF S/O. ABDUL KAREEM, MANAZ MANZIL, MEMANA, OACHIRA, KOLLAM - 690 526.**
- **3 THE MANAGER REPRESENTING ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE LTD., SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46 WHITE ROAD, ROYAL PETTAH, CHENNAI - 600014.**
- **4 SIBDESWARAN S/O. RAJAMANIKYAM, HOUSE NO. 370, CHENDAMANGALAM P.O., GANDHIPURAM EAST, N AMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU - 637 001.**
- **5 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER REPRESENTING THE M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. D.O. 90A, THURAYUR ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU - 637 001.**
**6 SRI. SENTHIL KUMAR S/O. KARUNAKARAN, NO. KPN EXTENSION, BANGALORE, NOW RESIDING AT NEW NO. 6/676 (OLD NO. 3/837)VIZHALA NAGAR, TRICHI MAIN ROAD, NAMAKKAL POST, MULAI NAGAR, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU - 637 001.**
- **7 THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.**
**8 * ADDL R8 :THE GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PANAMPILLI AVENUE, PANAMPILLI NAGAR, COCHIN - 682 036.**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 28
**9 * ADDL R9 : THE REGIONAL MANAGER M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., M.G. ROAD, COCHIN, PIN - 682 016.**
**(ADDL.8TH AND 9TH RESPONDENTS ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19/9/18 IN IA NO.2834/2018)**
**BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.ANANDAN , SR.GOVERMENT PLEADER SRI.A.R.GEORGE SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.P.GOPINATH**
**THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.10.2018, ALONG WITH [MACA 432/2017, MACA.2297/2018, MACA.2298/2018, MACA.2299/2018, MACA.2306/2018, MACA.2310/2018, MACA.2315/2018, MACA.2316/2018, MACA.2379/2018, MACA.2403/2018 & MACA.2620/2017], THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 29
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN**
**FRIDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1940**
**M.A.C.A.No. 2379 of 2018**
**AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 619/2014 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM**
## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :**
|**1**|**PARESH MONI DAS**|
|---|---|
||**AGED 56 YEARS**|
||**S/O.HEERALAL MONI DAS, VILL BAHARI (RESERVE),**|
||**MOUZACHENGA P.S,**|
||**BARPETA DISTRICT, ASSAM- 781325.**|
|**2**|**SMT.MILAN MONI DAS,**|
||**AGED 48 YEARS**|
||**W/O.PARESH MONI DAS, VILL BAHARI,**|
||**MOUZACHENGA P.S, BARPETA DISTRICT,**|
||**ASSAM- 781325.**|
|**3**|**PANKAJ MONI DAS,**|
||**AGED 23 YEARS**|
||**S/O.PARESH MONI DAS, VILL BAHARI,**|
||**MOUZACHENGA P.S, BARPETA DISTRICT,**|
||**ASSAM- 781325.**|
|**4**|**GOLAK MONI DAS**|
||**AGED 21 YEARS**|
||**S/O.PARESH MONI DAS, VILL BAHARI,**|
||**MOUZACHENGA P.S, BARPETA DISTRICT,**|
||**ASSAM- 781325.**|
|**5**|**PRAKASH MONI DAS,**|
||**AGED 17 YEARS**|
||**S/O.PARESH MONI DAS, VILL BAHARI, MOUZACHENGA P.S,**|
||**BARPETA DISTRICT, ASSAM- 781325.**|
||**(MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER, 1ST APPELLANT).**|
||**BY ADV. PRATHEESH.P**|
||**SRI.RENY ANTO**|
||**SMT.ARCHANA.K.S**|
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 30
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU, MAMPARA THEKKATHIL, MARU SOUTH, ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM- 690573.**
- **2 ABDUL MANAF, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, MANAZ MANZIL, MEMANA, OACHIRA, KOLLAM- 690523.**
- **3 THE MANAGER, REPRESENTING ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE LTD., SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46 WHITE ROAD, ROYAL PETTAH, CHENNAI- 600014**
- **4 THE MANAING DIRECTOR, MANNARSI TRANSPORT, 6/1172, PARAMATHI ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU- 637001.**
- **5 SIBDESWARAN, S/O.RAJAMANIKYAM, HOUSE NO.370, CHENADAMANGALAM P.O., GANDHIPURAM EAST, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU- 637001.**
- **6 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. D.O 90A, THURAYUR ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU- 637001.**
**7 SENTHIL KUMAR, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, NO.KPN EXTENSION, BANGALORE, NOW RESIDING AT NEW NO.6/676 (OLD NO.3/387) VIZHALA NAGAR, TRICHI MAIN ROAD, NAMAKKAL POST, MULA NAGAR, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU- 6737001.**
- **8 THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 001.**
- **9 ADDL R9.THE GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD,PANAMPILLI AVENUE,PANAMPILLI NAGAR, COCHIN 682036**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 31
**10 ADDL R10.THE REGIONAL MANAGER M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. M.G ROAD COCHIN 682016(ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19/9/2018 IN IA NO.2877/18 IN MACA 2379/18)**
**BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.ANANDAN , SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON SRI.JACOB MATHEW SRI.A.R.GEORGE SRI.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN**
**THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.10.2018, ALONG WITH [MACA432/2017, MACA.2297/2018, MACA.2298/ 2018, MACA.2299/2018, MACA.2306/2018, MACA.2310/2018, MACA.2315/2018, MACA.2316/2018, MACA.2349/2018, MACA.2403/2018 & MACA.2620/2017], THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 32
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN**
**FRIDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1940**
**M.A.C.A.No. 2403 of 2018**
**AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 431/2012 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOLLAM DATED 28-12-2016**
## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:**
- **1 DIPALI DAS, W/O DASARATH DAS, AGED 47 YEARS WARD NO.1, SARBHOG TOWN, BARPETA DISTRICT, ASSAM - 781317**
- **2 RINKI DAS, D/O DASARATH DAS, AGED 23 YEARS WARD NO.1, SARBHOG TOWN, BARPETA DISTRICT, ASSAM - 781317**
- **3 RITU DAS, S/O DASARATH DAS, AGED 20 YEARS, WARD NO.1, SARBHOG TOWN, BARPETTA DISTRICT, ASSAM - 781317**
- **4 UTTAM DAS, S/O DASARATH DAS, AGED 13 YEARS, WARD NO.1, SARBHOG TOWN, BARPETTA DISTRICT, ASSAM – 781317**
- **5 RAKHI(UMA) DAS, D/O DASARTH DAS, AGED 10 YEARS, WARD NO.1, SARBHOG TOWN, BARPETTA DISTRICT, ASSAM – 781317**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 33
**BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SRI.RENY ANTO SMT.ARCHANA**
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU MAMPARA THEKKATHIL, MARU SOUTH, ALUMKADAVU P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM 690 573.**
- **2 ABDUL MANAF S/O. ABDUL KAREEM, MANAZ MANZIL, MEMANA, OACHIRA,KOLLAM 690 526.**
- **3 THE MANAGER REPRESENTING ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE LTD, SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46 WHITE ROAD, ROYAL PETTAH, CHENNAI 600 014**
- **4 THE MANAING DIRECTOR, MANNARSI TRANSPORT, 6/1172, PARAMATHI ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU- 637001.**
- **5 SIBDESWARAN S/O. RAJAMANIKYAM, HOUSE NO.370, CHENADAMANGALAM P.O, GANDHIPURAM EAST, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU 637 001.**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 34
- **6 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER REPRESENTING THE M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE**
- **COMPANY LTD. D.O 90A, THURAYUR ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU 637 001.**
**7 SRI. SENTIL KUMAR S/O. KARUNAKARAN, NO. KPN EXTENSION, BANGALORE, NOW RESIDING AT NEW NO. 6/676 (OLD NO. 3/837)VIZHALA NAGAR, TRICHI MAIN ROAD, NAMAKKAL POST, MULAI NAGAR, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU 637 001.**
- **8 THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001.**
***9 THE GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PANAMPILLI AVENUE, PANAMPILLI NAGAR, COCHIN – 682036**
***10 THE REGIONAL MANAGER, M/S.NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., M.G. ROAD, COCHIN, PIN - 682016**
**(*ADDL. RESPONDENTS 9 & 10 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 26.10.2018 IN I.A NO.2907/2018)**
**BY ADVS. R8.SRI.M.V.ANANDAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER R9.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR**
**R3.SRI.JACOB MATHEW R6.SRI.A.R.GEORGES SRI.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 35
**SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.P.GOPINATH SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.P.GOPINATH**
**THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.10.2018, ALONG WITH [ MACA 432/2017, MACA.2297/2018, MACA.2298/2018, MACA.2299/2018, MACA.2306/2018, MACA.2310/2018, MACA.2315/2018, MACA.2316/2018, MACA.2349/2018, MACA.2379/2018, MACA.2403/2018 & MACA.2620/2017] THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 36
## **JUDGMENT**
**[ MACA 432/2017, MACA.2297/2018, MACA.2298/2018, MACA.2299/2018, MACA.2306/2018, MACA.2310/2018, MACA.2315/2018, MACA.2316/2018, MACA.2349/2018, MACA.2379/2018, MACA.2403/2018 & MACA.2620/2018]**
These appeals are preferred against the award in OP (MV) Nos.926/2010, OP (MV) Nos.384/2010, 1102/2010, 1552/2010, 1100/2010, 555/2011, 21/2011, 1014/2012, 431/2012, 843/2012, 433/2012 and 619/2014 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. OP (MV)926/2010 was preferred by Sajeev, who sustained serious burn injuries in a motor accident on 31.12.2009 at 3.30 am. In the above accident, 11 others namely Pradeep Kumar, Nazar, Muraleedharan Pillai, Abhilash, Asharaf, Abdul Samad, Biju, Dasarath Das, Rasheed, Sunil Kumar and Pinku Monidas sustained burn injuries, while undergoing treatment they died. The legal representatives of the deceased preferred the above claim petitions before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The learned tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that claimants
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 37
failed to prove that the accident occurred as a result of use of a motor vehicle in a public road. Being aggrieved by that petitioners preferred MACA No.2349/2018 against OP(MV)384/2010, MACA No.2306/2018 against OP(MV) 1102/2010, MACA No.2298/2018 against OP(MV) 1552/2010, MACA No.2316/2018 against OP(MV)1100/2010, MACA No.2315/2018 against OP(MV)555/2011, MACA No. 2310/2018 against OP(MV) 21/2011, MACA No.2620/2017 against OP(MV)1014/2012, MACA No.2403/2018 against OP(MV)431/2012, MACA No. 2299/2018 against OP(MV) 843/2012, MACA No.2297/2018 against OP(MV) 433/2012 and MACA No. 2379/2018 against OP(MV)619/2014.
2. The claimant's case in the lower court is that on 31.12.2009 at 3.30 a.m, the tanker lorry No.KA01AE2119 carrying Liquid Petroleum Gas was proceeding through the Alappuzha – Kollam NH road in a rash and negligent manner, when it reached at Puthentheruvu, Karunagappilly the vehicle hit against a Maruthi car No.KL 23 B 5418 which was proceeding from the opposite side. As a result, the gas capsule carried in the tanker lorry was detached from the lorry and the outlet valve of the LPG tanker got damaged
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 38
and the gas leaked and spread 200 meters around the area. Immediately Fire and other rescue operators arrived at the place of occurrence, they engaged in the rescue operation. The police jeep KL01 AQ 7063 attached to Chavara police station was parked 86 metres away from the south east from the place of occurrence on the side of the road. During rescue operation at 4.37 am, the driver of the police jeep started the jeep and due to the impact of the spark, the gas tanker exploded. The police driver was burned at the place of occurrence and the other persons, Pradeep Kumar, Nazar, Muraleedharan Pillai, Abhilash, Asharaf, Abdul Samad, Biju, Dasarth Das, Rasheed, Sunil Kumar and Pinku Monidas engaged in rescue operation sustained serious burn injuries and died at the spot itself and one Sajeev sustained serious burn injuries.
3. In the lower court, the driver and owner of the car No.KL23B5418 contended that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and the explosion occurred due to the reckless act of the driver of the police jeep. The insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle, but R1 to R3 contended that there was no negligence from the part of the driver
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 39
of the car.
4. R4 is the owner and R5 is the driver of the tanker lorry. R6 the insurer of the lorry admitted the insurance of the vehicle, but disputed the liability.
5. All the above claims were tried jointly in the lower court as per order in I.A No.574/2016 and I.A.No.5895/2013, the evidence was recorded in OP(MV)926/2010. Claimant's evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 to PW8 and documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A106. The respondents evidence consists of oral testimony of RW1 to RW5 and documentary evidence of Exts. B1 to B5. The court Exhibits were marked as Exts.X1 to X3 series and X4 to X5(e).
6. When the matter came up for hearing, on the basis of the submission of the insurer of the lorry, this court suo moto impleaded additional 8[th] respondent in MACA No.432/2017 and additional 9[th] and 10[th] respondents in other appeals.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the accident was due to the collision between a Maruthi car and tanker lorry. The passengers of the Maruthi car
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 40
sustained serious injuries and they were removed to the hospital immediately after the accident. The gas capsule carried in the tanker lorry was detached from the vehicle, its valve damaged and the gas leaked around 200 meters at the place of occurrence. The bursting was due to the spark from the police jeep, therefore the insurer of the tanker lorry is liable to pay compensation.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent contended that Maruthi car was coming from south to north, and the tanker lorry hit against the car and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruthi car and they have no liability.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer of the lorry contended that the accident was at 3.30 a.m and the explosion was at 4.47 a.m due to the spark from the police jeep. Insurer of the tanker lorry is not liable and the owner of the tanker lorry has to take Public Liability insurance policy while carrying hazardous goods in a motor vehicle. Explosion is the cause of death and injury. In the circumstances, the compensation shall be paid to the victims as per Public Liability Policy issued. For awarding compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 41
1988, the claimants have to prove the rash and negligent act of the driver of the tanker lorry and nothing to do with the above explosion.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the additional respondents 8 and 9 contended that, they are unnecessary parties in this appeal. As per Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, every application shall be made before the District Collector who shall conduct an enquiry following summary procedure. The tribunal has nothing to do with the above policy.
11. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 7[th] respondent contended that State is an unnecessary party and no liability can be imposed upon State. The District Collector on moral ground already disbursed just amount of compensation immediately after the accident to the victims and legal representatives of the deceased and they have no liability.
12. The accident was at 3.30 a.m at Karunagappilly on the Kollam - Alappuzha NH Road. The tanker lorry was proceeding from Manglore to Parippally, Kollam, when it reached Karunagappally, the vehicle hit against the Maruthi car. The
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 42
evidence of PW1 shows that on 31.12.2009, the tanker lorry KA01AE2119 was proceeding through the NH Road from Alappuzha to Kollam, when it reached at the place of occurrence, the vehicle hit against a Maruthi car No.KL 23 B 5418. As a result, gas bullet detached from the lorry fell on the road, the valve of the gas bullet got damaged and gas leaked. The local people, police and fire force entered into rescue operations, in the meanwhile, the gas tank blasted. Ext.A1 is the copy of FIR and A2 is the charge sheet. A3 is the scene mahazar and A4 is the vehicle mahazar. A5 is another mahazar and A6 is the AMVI report. A27, A33, A42, A47, A59, A54, A64, A69, A75, A80, A84, A89 postmortem report show that the death was due to the burn injuries sustained in the accident. PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW8, the legal representatives of the deceased persons, supported the evidence of PW1. Respondent examined RW1, who is the insurer of the tanker lorry. RW2 is the fire man. RW3 is the fire man of Karunagappilly fire station. RW4 deposed that the explosion was due to the spark from the police jeep when it was started, by the driver. Analysing the evidence of these witnesses, it is found that the accident was
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 43
due to the rash and negligent driving of the tanker lorry by the 5[th] respondent, as a result, the passengers in the Maruthi car sustained injuries and the gas bullet detached from the lorry, the valve of the gas bullet damaged, gas leaked and spread over 200 metres around the place of accident, due to the spark from the police jeep, the gas tanker exploded. The driver of the jeep died at the spot itself.
13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent, Indian Oil Corporation was impleaded as additional respondent in this appeal. They submitted that they had already disbursed a sum of Rs.13,66,415/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs sixty six thousand four hundred and fifteen only) to District Collector, Kollam in view of the Public Liability Insurance Policy no.121400/36/09/38/00000076. Section 4 of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 shows that every application under Section 6 shall be made by the persons injured or the owner of the property or death has resulted from the accident by the legal heirs or by any agent duly authorised or the owner of the property within five years of the occurrence of the accident. Such applications shall be
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 44
made before the District Collector who shall conduct an enquiry following summary procedure. Public Prosecutor submitted that District Collector had already disbursed some amount in view of Public Liability Policy. Hence Indian Oil Corporation is unnecessary party in the tribunal.
14. Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 says about the words “arising out of the use of Motor Vehicles” in the Section as follows:
**165. Claims Tribunals.** -(1) A state Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both.
A reading of the aforesaid Section makes it clear that the Tribunal can adjudicate the claims for compensation in respect of accidents out of the use of Motor Vehicles. Therefore, the primary
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 45
requirement is that the accident should have occurred out of the use of Motor Vehicles. When there is no use of Motor Vehicle, there will not arise the question of accident.
15. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal aspect, I have analysed the facts whether the use of Motor Vehicle in this case is sufficient to treat it as a vehicular accident. The phrase “arising out of the use of a Motor Vehicle” pertained in Section 92 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the 1939 Act') has been discussed by the apex court in **Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More (1991 3 SCC 530)** wherein it was held as follows:
“14. The learned counsel for the petitioner therein urged for placing a narrow meaning on the word “use” by confining it to a situation only when the vehicle is mobile. On behalf of the respondent, it was suggested that a wider connotation for the word “use” should be taken so as to include the period when the vehicle is stationary. On behalf of the respondents, observations made in Elliott v. Grey, Govt. Insurance Office of New South Walves v. R.J. Green & Lloyd Pty. Ltd., Pushpa Rani Chopra v. Anokha Singh, Karnataka SRTC v. Sangappa Satalingappa Goudar
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 46
and Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suman Navnath Rajguru were pressed into service. The Court, after referring to the decisions cited by the respondent and the analysis made by the High Court, opined: (Patil case, SCC p.546, para 26)
“26....In our opinion, the word “use” has a wider connotation to cover the period when the vehicle is not moving and is stationary and the use of a vehicle does not cease on account of the vehicle having been rendered immobile on account of a breakdown or mechanical defect or accident. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petrol tanker was not in the use at the time when it was lying on it side after the collision with the truck.”
“18. The two-Judge Bench, appreciating the wider connotation, proceeded to lay down: (Patil case, SCC pp.549-50 para 36)
“36. This would show that as compared to the expression “caused by”, the expression “arising out of” has a wider connotation. The expression “caused by” was used in Sections 95(1)(b)(i) and (ii) and 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. In Section 92-A, Parliament, however, chose to use the expression “arising out of “ which indicates that for the purpose of awarding compensation under Section 92-A, the causal relationship between the use of the motor vehicle and the accident resulting in death or permanent
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 47
disablement is not required to be direct and proximate and it can be less immediate. This would imply that accident should be connected with the use of the motor vehicle but the said connection need not be direct and immediate. This construction of the expression “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” in Section 92-A enlarges the field of protection made available to the victims of an accident and is in consonance with the beneficial object underlying the enactment.”
“25. From the aforesaid authorities, it is limpid that the expression “use of the vehicle” under certain circumstances can be attracted when the vehicle is stationary or static. A Single Judge Bench of the High Court of Orissa in Kanhei Rana v. Gangadhar Swain while dealing with a situation where the deceased labourer after loading the truck with logs lost his life. The Tribunal had categorically found that death was on the account of fall of a log, when the truck was being loaded with logs. The learned Single Judge, in appeal, had concurred with the view of the Tribunal by opining that the fall of the log had no nexus with the use of the vehicle not even remotely, and there was no material to show that the fall of the log was occasioned due to use of the vehicle. He had further held that the careless handling of goods being loaded on or unloaded from a vehicle had no connection to the
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 48
vehicle itself. Reversing the conclusion of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench opined that the concept of movement being not intrinsically or inherently connected with the use and the term “use” having been connotatively expanded, there can be no doubt that the same can also be extended to the arena/sphere of a claim advanced under Section 110 of the 1939 Act. Heavy onus is cast on the driver to avoid negligence while the vehicle is in use. If the term “use” in its conceptual sweep engulfs no motion or no movement or stationariness, then by logical corollary it is made essential that the driver or for that matter any agent of the owner should be careful and non-negligent. Negligence in driving is regarded as a fact that the vehicle is in motion. But the definition of “use” having been expended in its broader canvas, it has to clothe in its sweep other categories of negligence. To elaborate, when a vehicle remains static, it cannot constitute that the driver is negligent because of his rash and negligent driving. On the contrary, it has to embody some other different types of negligence. Of course that would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Division Bench of the High Court went on to say that the Apex Court in Patil was dealing with the negligence so far as it was concerned with Section 92 of the Act, but as the language of Section 92-A and Section
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 49
110 of the old Act used the same phraseology and there is absence of any etymological distinction, the same meaning should be given to the expression under Section 110 of the old Act. The appellate Bench held that there was causal relationship with the accident which had resulted in the death of the claimant.”
16. Apex court in **Kalim Khan and others vs. Fimidabee and others (2018 7 SCC 687)** held as follows:
The expression “use of the vehicle” under certain circumstances can be attracted when the vehicle is stationary or static. Negligence in driving is regarded as a fact that the vehicle is in motion. But the definition of “use” having been expanded in its broader canvas, it has to clothe in its sweep other categories of negligence. To elaborate, when a vehicle remains static, it cannot constitute that the driver is negligent because of his rash and negligent driving. On the contrary, it has to embody some other different types of negligence. Of course that would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each cases.
The aforesaid provisions make it clear that the Tribunal can adjudicate the claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 in respect of accident arising out of the
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 50
motor vehicle. The fundamental principle is that the accident should arise out of the use of a motor vehicle and if there is no use of motor vehicle in a public place, no such liability arises to the insurer. The expression "use of the vehicle" under Motor Vehicle Act means any user of a motor vehicle which depends upon every circumstance irrespective of whether the vehicle is moving or stationary or static. Rash and negligent driving is regarded as a fact that the vehicle is in motion. But the meaning of the word "use" having been extended in its wider cognition it has to extend to other categories of negligence. On the other hand, when a vehicle remains static, it cannot say that the driver is negligent because of his rash and negligent act. On the contrary, it has to express some other types of negligence, that would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
17. In **Kalim Khan's** case (supra) Para 10 held as follows:
“10. Keeping the aforesaid definitions in view, we are required to analyse whether the use of the vehicle in the manner in which it is done can be treated as use of the vehicle to cause a vehicular accident. This court in **Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More** was dealing
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 51
with conceptual meaning of the phrase “arising out of the use of motor vehicle” as contained in Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1939 Act”). We may note with profit that Section 92-A(1) used the words “an accident arising out the use of a motor vehicle” and Section 165 of the Act that has been reproduced herein above also uses the words “arising out of the use of motor vehicles”. Thus, there has been no change in this part of the provision.”
Apex court in **Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More (1991 3 SCC 530)** considered the question of phrase arising out of the use of motor vehicles as contained in Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
18. Lower court failed to appreciate the facts and dismissed the claim petition ignoring the pleadings and documentary evidence. In the circumstances, the dismissal of the claim petitions is hereby set aside. Expression “use” of motor vehicle, held, very wide can include non-traffic use when vehicle is stationary. Words “arising out of the use of motor vehicle have to be interpreted keeping in mind statutory purpose of beneficial legislation. Here the
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 52
accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry and explosion was due to the use of jeep as stated under Section 165 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the victims are entitled to get just compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
19. The driver of the jeep is no more. But the owner and the insurer of the jeep are parties in the lower court, therefore the liability can be fixed only after hearing them. Whenever any accident occurs causing death or injury to any person out of the use of the Motor vehicle, the jurisdiction of the claim tribunal arise and victims are entitled to get compensation for accident arising out of use of the Motor vehicle the test should be whether the accident was reasonably proximate to the use of the motor vehicle, whether or not the Motor vehicle was in motion or not. Here the lorry hit against a Maruthi car and the gas bullet carried in the vehicle was detached from the lorry and fell into the road and gas spread over 200 metres around the locality. The only contention advanced by the insurer of the lorry is that explosion was due to the impact of starting of jeep. In such a situation, the liability of the insurer of the police jeep and the insurer of the lorry driver has
**MACA Nos.432/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES** 53
to be decided by the tribunal.
20. In the above circumstances, the dismissal of OP(MV)Nos.926/2010, 384/2010, 1102/2010, 1552/2010, 1100/2010, 555/2011, 21/2011, 1014/2012, 431/2012, 843/2012, 433/2012 and 619/2014 is set aside and the matter is remitted to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam for fresh consideration. Parties are directed to appear before Motor Accidents Tribunal, Kollam on 14.02.2019.
In such circumstances, the petitioners are directed to implead the owner and insurer of the police jeep no.KL-01/AQ-7063 as a party in this matter. On such impleading, the tribunal shall issue notice to them and give opportunity to file written statement, if any, both parties are at liberty to adduce evidence. The Indian Oil Corporation is not a necessary party in view of the Public Liability Policy issued.
**SD/-**
## **P.D.RAJAN**
**JUDGE**
ACM / 30.10.2018