MOHANAN C T Vs. YESODA C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in O.S. No. 265 of 1978 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Cannanore are the appellants. THE suit relates to 36 cents of land comprised in R.S. No. 69/6 in Elavoor Amsom, Chow a Desom. THE plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the plaint schedule property belongs to her. THEre is a "samadhi sthanamnagam" on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property. THE plaintiff claims title and possession of the entire 36 cents inclusive of this "samadhi stanamnagam". THE plaintiff alleged that she had been in possession of the plaint schedule property for the last 50 years and the income from this property was set apart for the conduct of poojas and other ceremonies in the aforesaid samadhi stanam nagam. In 1967, an R.C.C. building was put up in the property at the place of worship according to the wishes of the 'Gurunadhan'. Religious Ceremonies are being performed in the "samadhi. Plaintiff further alleged that the defendants have no title or possession over the property. After the filing of the written statement by the defendant, plaintiff amended the plaint and added para 5a to the plaint. An additional prayer for declaration was incorporated in the plaint. In para. 5a of the plaint, plaintiff alleged that the document execrated in favour of Chaliloth Krishnan on 4-12-1961 in respect of the plaint schedule property had not come into effect and as per that document, the property was not intended to be conveyed to the said Krishnan and who never enjoyed or possessed the plaint schedule propqrty, It is also alleged that the title deed, if any, of Krishnan was lost by adverse possession and limitation.

(2.) THE defendants are the widow and son of Chaliloth Krishnan. THEy alleged that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to one Ramunni. He got the same in the partition effected as per final decree in O.S. No. 123 of 1945. Ramunni died and his wife and children executed the sale deed in favour of Yesodha. THE said Yesodha transferred the property on 4-12-1961 in favour of Krishnan the husband of 1st defendant. Defendants also alleged that after the death of Krishnan the property devolved on the defendants and the plaintiff was never in possession of the property. THEy also contended that the decease. Krishnan had

(3.) A reading of the above provision would make it clear that wherever death or disablement of any person has resulted from an accident as contemplated therein, the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions thereof. This liability arises irrespective of rashness or negligence on the part of the driver in the driving of the vehicle to any extent. In other words, it creates a no fault liability to the extent indicated above. This is clear from Sub-section (3) which states that the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the, vehicle or of any other person. Sub-section (2) quantifies the claim, that is, Rs. 15,000/- in the case of death and Rs. 7,500/- in the case of permanent disablement. There is nothing in Section 92A which would indicate that the owner can be ordered to pay compensation only on a claim application to be filed by the claimant. Section 110 deals with establishment of Claims Tribunals. Sub-section (1) states that the State Government may constitute tribunals 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. The procedure for putting forward such a claim is prescribed in Section 110 A. This provision contemplates an application for compensation to be filed in such form and with such particulars as may be prescribed. Rules have prescribed the form and particulars. No doubt, proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 110A states that where any claim for compensation Section 92A is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant. We do not understand this provision as laying down a condition that compensation under Section 92A can be awarded only on a formal application or a formal claim being made in the main application. It is not as if the claim and order to be passed under Section 92A is always independent of the claim under Section 110A.