Allowed

Musthafa v. M.P.Firoz

Kerala HC10 Aug 2012WP(C)/6929/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging dismissal of IA for restoration of O.P. in Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on grounds of condoning 1219 days delay. Court set aside impugned order and directed Tribunal to afford opportunity to produce evidence before deciding on condonation of delay in expeditious manner, cushioned by waiver of interest on that period if condoned.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Ext.P2 order set aside; M.A.C.T., Kozhikode directed to consider IA for restoration after affording opportunity to produce evidence and pass final orders expeditiously; interest waiv

Musthafa Vs M.P.Firoz — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/19TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 6929 of 2010 (M) -------------------------OP.3083/2008 of M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MUSTAFA, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SIDDIQUE HAJEE, THURAKKAL VEETTIL P.O. NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUDHISH

¶9

SMT.M.MANJU

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

M.P.FIROZ, MADAMATTAVIDA HOUSE, KANNANKADAVU, CHEMMANCHERI KAPPAD P.O., KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶12

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH U.P. HILL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 6929 of 2010 (M)

¶15

A P P E N D I X

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶17

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RESTORATION APPLICATION I.A.2178/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MACT.

¶18

EXT.P2: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DT.29.07.2009 IN COMMON ORDER I.A.2177/2009 & 2178/2009 OF MACT, KOZHIKODE.

¶19

/TRUE COPY/

¶20

P.A TO JUDGE

¶21

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶22

W.P(c) No.6929 of 2010-M

¶23

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2012

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by Ext.P2 order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (`M.A.C.T' for short), Kozhikode. As per Ext.P2, I.A.No.2177 of 2009 filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed.

¶26

The petitioner had filed O.P(MV) No.3083 of 2008 before the Tribunal. The said petition had been dismissed on 24.01.2006. The petitioner filed I.A.No.2177 of 2009 accompanied by I.A.No.2178 of 2009 for restoration of the O.P after condoning a delay of 1219 days. As per Ext.P2, the Tribunal has found that the petitioner had not produced any evidence in support of his contentions explaining the delay. Since the delay was unusually large, the Tribunal dismissed the petition.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would produce evidence to support his contentions and to establish the reason for the delay. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the petitioner can be granted another

¶28

W.P(c) No.6929 of 2010-M 2

¶29

opportunity to explain his delay and to seek condonation of the same, after adducing evidence in support of his contentions.

¶30

In view of the above, Ext.P2 order is set aside. The M.A.C.T, Kozhikode, is directed to consider I.A.No.2177 of 2009 and I.A.No.2178 of 2009 in O.P(MV) No.3083 of 2008 in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence, if any, in support of his contentions and to pass final orders thereon expeditiously. It is made clear that in the event of the Tribunal deciding to condone the delay of 1219 days in filing the said petition, the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim interest for that period on any amount that may be found due to the petitioner in O.P(MV) No.3083 of 2008.

¶31

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶32

rtr/

Musthafa v. M.P.Firoz

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musthafa v. M.P.Firoz

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

Rinu Mathew Parambate Vs State of Kerala

Sundaresan Nair Vs the Joint Registrar

President Vs State of Kerala

Chandran Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Usha Raveendran Vs the Chief Engineer (Hrm)

Hareendranath A.G. Vs the Special Sale Officer