Dismissed

Sivaprasadan Pillai v. Abdul Basith

Kerala HC21 Nov 2012OP (MAC)/3921/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses I.A. Nos. 671/2012 and 672/2012 seeking condonation of delay and setting aside an ex-parte decree. The court found no satisfactory explanation for the petitioner's non-appearance before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal despite insurer assurances.

What did the court decide?

Applications for condoning delay and setting aside the ex-parte order were dismissed. Original petition dismissed.

Sivaprasadan Pillai Vs Abdul Basith — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/30TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

OP (MACT).No. 3921 of 2012 (O)

¶6

I.A.NOS.671/2012 & 672/2012 DATED 28/05/2012 IN OP(MV)NO.538/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,MANJERI

¶7

PETITIONER(S):RESPONDENT NO.1:

¶8

SIVAPRASADAN PILLAI,, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI,

¶9

FOUSIYA QUARTERS,CHAPPANANGADI, KOTTAKKAL VIA., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):PETITIONERS & RESPONDENT NO.2:

¶12

1. ABDUL BASITH,, AGED 25 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY SALIH THANGAL, JAMALULLAILY MANZIL PALLIPPADI MAKHAM SHAREED, P.O.CHENAKKALANGADI - 673 636,THENHIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (DIED).

¶13

2. SAYID SALIH JAMALULLAILY THANGAL,, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.SAYED FAISAL JAMALULLAILY POOKKOYATHANGAL,

¶14

JAMALULLAILY MANZIL,PALLIPPADI MAKHAM SHAREED, P.O.CHENAKKALANGADI - 673 636, THENHIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

3. K.P. ATTABEEVI,, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.SAYID SALIH JAMALULLAILY THANGAL, JAMALULLAILY MANZIL, PALLIPPADI MAKHAM SHAREED, P.O.CHENAKKALANGADI - 673 636,THENHIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

Kss

..2/-

..2....

OP(MAC)NO.3921/2012 O

¶20

4. C.M. SUHRABI,, AGED 26 YEARS, W/O.LATE ABDUL BASITH, JAMALULLAILY MANZIL, PALLIPPADI MAKHAM SHAREED, P.O.CHENAKKALANGADI, THENHIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 636.

¶21

5. FASAL RAHMAN, AGED 6 YEARS, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER, C.M.SUHRABI, JAMALULLAILY MANZIL, PALLIPPADI MAKHAM SHAREED, P.O.CHENAKKALANGADI, THENHIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 636.

¶22

6. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, UP HILL PO, MALAPPURAM.

¶23

R6 BY ADV. SRI. JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD, SC

¶24

THIS OP (MACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

Kss

¶26

OP(MAC) NO.3921/2012 O

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXHIBIT-P1 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF OFFENDING VEHICLE REG.NO.KL-2/L 910 ISSUED FROM THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MALAPPURAM.

¶30

EXHIBIT-P2 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THIS PETITIONER FROM THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MALAPPURAM, EVIDENCING THAT THE VEHICLE IN QUESTION IS TRANSFERRED FROM THE PETITIONER'S NAME TO ONE ASHARAF, S/O.MOHAMMED, THORAPA HOUSE, KOOTTILANGADI EVER SINCE FROM 3-4-2012.

¶31

EXHIBIT-P3 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE IN E.P.NO.29/2011 IN O.P. (MV) NO.538/2006 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL MANJERI.

¶32

EXHIBIT-P4 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED 23-1-2012 IN I.A. NO.671/2012.

¶33

EXHIBIT-P5 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED 23-1-2012 IN I.A. NO.672/2012.

¶34

EXHIBIT-P6 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 28-5-2012 IN IA. NOS.671/2012 & 672/2012.

¶35

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

O.P.(MAC) No. 3921 of 2012

¶41

Dated this the 21^st day of November , 2012.

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

I.A. 672/2012 is a petition filed for setting aside the exparte order and I.A.671/2012 for condoning the delay in filing the application for setting aside the exparte order.

¶44

The petitioner is the first respondent in O.P(MV) No.538/06. The Tribunal passed an award dated 20.10.2010. Petitioner received notice but he did not choose to appear before the Tribunal. The reason stated for nonappearance before the Tribunal is that the petitioner approached the insurer whose officials assured that they will do the needful in the matter on his behalf . Learned Judge consider the matter on merits and found that there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The Court on merits was convinced that the petitioner failed to make out a case for setting aside the ex-parte decree.

¶45

In the circumstances, I.A. Nos.671/2012 for condoning the delay was dismissed Consequently, I.A.No. 672/2012 was also dismissed. I find no reason to interfere with the Ext.P6 order passed by the Tribunal.

¶46

Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed.

¶47

al/-

¶48

Sd/HARUN-UL-RASHID,

Sivaprasadan Pillai v. Abdul Basith

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivaprasadan Pillai v. Abdul Basith

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jiju. P Vs Sasimala Kasheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham Ltd. No. W.22(D) & Others

Vidyadaran Vs State of Kerala

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs the State Transport Authority,Thiruvananthapuram

Manakadavan Aboobacker Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Sasankan Vs the Managing Director, Ksrtc

Sivaprasadan Pillai Vs E.M.Abdulla