Dismissed
Davis v. Ratheesh P.V.
Kerala HCTr.P(C)/193/2009
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931
Tr.P(C).No. 193 of 2009()
------------------------OP(MV)1393/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM
PETITIONERS:
2. PHILOMINA, AGED 44 YEARS,
3. ALEX DAVIS, AGED 18 YEARS,
BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. RATHEESH.P.V, S/O.VASUDEVAN PATTATT HOUSE, VALLANCHIRA PO, THRISSUR (OWNER)
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD PARK HOUSE, ROUND NORTH, TRICHUR.
THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
Tr.P.C.No.193 of 2009
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009
O R D E R
This transfer petition is filed under Section 24 CPC. Petitioners are the claimants in O.P.(MV).No.1393/2006 on the file of the MACT, Ottappalam. Transfer of that claim petition from MACT, Ottappalam to MACT, Thrissur is sought for in the petition. A report from the MACT, Ottappalam was called for. The report forwarded would show that previously, the petition was filed under Section 163 of the MV Act but, later amended to Section 166 of the MV Act. Amendment ordered on 30.4.2009 is still to be carried out by the petitioners. It is also reported that the insurer in his written statement has contended that the vehicle driven by the victim, for whose death compensation is claimed, alone was involved in the occurrence and the case advanced that the accident occurred due to collision of two vehicles is not correct. The only reason canvassed is that the petitioners/claimants are residing in Thrissur and it will be convenient for them to conduct the case before the MACT, Thrissur.
2
Tr.P.C.No.193 of 2009
presented, at this fag end, I do not see any reason for transfer of the petition which had been filed nearly three years ago. I direct the learned MACT Judge, Ottappalam to have an expeditious disposal of the claim petition, after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in support of their respective case.
The transfer petition is closed with the above direction.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE.
bkn/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a claim petition filed over three years ago under Section 166 of the MV Act, which the petitioners are still amending, should be transferred from MACT Ottappalam to MACT Thrissur for litigatio
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Davis and others (claimants in Motor Accident Claim No. 1393/2006)
Ratheesh.P.V
United India Insurance Co.Ltd
S.S.Satheesachanan
S.S. Satheesachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court