Allowed

Sulaikha v. Unnikrishnan

Kerala HC8 Aug 2012OP (MAC)/1725/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition set aside MACT orders dismissing heirs' requests for impleadment. The court remanded the claim petition to the MACT while ordering payment to the Advocates Welfare Fund and restricting interest claims for the delayed period.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned orders, allowed IA Nos 3270-3273, remanded O.P(MV) No.753/2007 to MACT, ordered remission of Rs.5,000 to Welfare Fund.

Sulaikha Vs Unnikrishnan — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/17TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

OP (MACT).No. 1725 of 2011 (O) -----------------------------OPMV.753/2007 of M.A.C.T., MANJERI

¶6

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS

¶7

SULAIKHA, AGED 41 YEARS,

¶8

W/O.LATE HAMZA, POOKODAN HOUSE, VALAMBUR,

¶9

TIRURKAD, PERINTALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

KABEER, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.LATE HAMZA,

¶11

POOKODAN HOUSE, VALAMBUR, TIRURKAD

¶12

PERINTALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)

¶14

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.PARANGODAN, KUZHIYENGAL HOUSE, VADAKKANGARA,

¶16

MANKADA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 324.

¶17

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., PEECHI COMPLEX, CALICUT ROAD, PERINTALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 322.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN

¶19

THIS OP (MACT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

OP (MAC).No. 1725 of 2011 (O)

¶21

A P P E N D I X

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶23

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2010 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI IN I.A.NO.3270 OF 2010 IN O.P(MV) NO.753/2007.

¶24

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2010 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI IN I.A.NO.3271/2010 IN O.P(MV) NO.753/2007.

¶25

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2010 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI IN I.A.NO.3272/2010 IN O.P(MV) NO.753/2007.

¶26

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2010 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI IN I.A.NO.3273/2010 IN O.P(MV) NO.753/2007.

¶27

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2010 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI IN O.P(MV) NO.753/2007.

¶28

/TRUE COPY/

¶29

P.A TO JUDGE

¶30

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶31

O.P(MAC) No.1725 of 2011-C

¶32

---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of August, 2012

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by Exts.P1 to P5 orders passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (`M.A.C.T' for short), Manjeri. The 1^st petitioner is the wife and the 2^nd petitioner is the son of the deceased/claimant. The deceased/claimant had suffered injuries in a road accident that took place on 04.03.2007. According to the petitioners, the injuries had caused 25% permanent partial disability to the deceased. Claiming compensation for the injuries, O.P(MV) No.753 of 2007 was filed by the deceased/claimant. The claimant had in the meantime become afflicted with lung cancer and he died on 26.06.2009. The petitioners contend that they were not aware of the details of the claim application filed by the deceased/claimant. They also did not know that they had to get themselves impleaded in the said petition on his death. The trauma of the injuries sustained by the deceased as well as his

¶35

O.P(MAC) No.1725 of 2011-C 2

¶36

subsequent death debilitated them from pursuing the claim petition effectively. According to them, it was only when they went to the office of their lawyer that they had come to know of the claim petition and it was only then that they were told of the necessity of getting impleaded in the claim petition in the place of the deceased claimant. For the above reasons, they sought for condonation of the delay, for setting aside abatement, for getting themselves impleaded in the place of the deceased/claimant and for an amendment of the claim petition. All the 4 petitions were considered by the M.A.C.T together and dismissed by Exts.P1 to P4 orders. As a consequence of Exts.P1 to P4 orders, Ext.P5 order has been passed dismissing the claim petition also.

¶37

The petitioners challenge the said orders in this Writ Petition. According to them, the delay that was caused in filing the necessary petitions to get themselves impleaded was not caused due to any willful act on their part. Therefore, according to them, it was necessary for the delay to be condoned. It is also contended that the M.A.C.T has not considered their contentions in the proper perspective.

¶38

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶39

¶40

O.P(MAC) No.1725 of 2011-C

¶41

Considering the personal tragedy that had befallen to the petitioners, I am inclined to believe the reasons stated by the petitioners in their affidavit. It is no doubt true that the affidavit does not disclose all the necessary details with specific reference to the date on which they had come to know of the pendency of the proceedings before the M.A.C.T. However, since it is not disputed that the deceased had suffered injuries in the motor accident, it is only appropriate that the petitioners are given a chance to agitate their contentions before the M.A.C.T. However, the said opportunity can be granted only subject to sufficient terms.

¶42

This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders Exts.P1 to P5 shall stand set aside and I.A.Nos.3270, 3271, 3272 and 3273 shall stand allowed on the petitioners remitting an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the Kerala High Court Advocates' Welfare Fund Trust and producing the receipt for such payment before this Court within a week. The petitioners shall also not be entitled to claim interest on any compensation that may be awarded to them in O.P(MV) No.753 of 2007 by the M.A.C.T for the period of delay of 334 days, that is condoned by the present oder. The

¶43

¶44

O.P(MAC) No.1725 of 2011-C

¶45

M.A.C.T, Manjeri, is directed to take up O.P(MV) No.753 of 2007, try and dispose of the same on the merits. The parties shall appear before the M.A.C.T, Manjeri, without any further notice on 17.09.2012.

¶46

Post on 16.08.2012 for production of receipt.

¶47

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶48

rtr/

¶49

Certified that in compliance with the directions in the judgment dated 8.8.2012 in O.P(MAC) No.1725/2011, the petitioner has remitted an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as costs to the Kerala High Court Advocates Welfare Fund Trust within the stipulated time vide memo dated 14.08.2012 bearing c.f.No.2103/12.

¶50

Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)

Sulaikha v. Unnikrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulaikha v. Unnikrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bargavi Vs Saji

R.Sathyadevan Vs the Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal,Tvm

The Kerala Institute of Local Administration Kila) Vs Gliston Vincent

A.S.Nold Vs Madhusudhanan Nair

K.B.Vittal Rai Vs the State Transport Authority.

K.B.Balakrishna Rai Vs the State Transport Authority