Dismissed

Jino Joseph v. Ajayan

Kerala HC9 Sept 2013MACA/1485/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable against an order dismissing a claim petition for default that does not constitute an 'award'. The appellee was directed to challenge the order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was closed without prejudice to the right of the appellant to challenge the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Jino Joseph Vs Ajayan — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/18TH BHADRA, 1935

¶5

MACA.No. 1485 of 2013 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.3496/2011 DATED 20.3.2013 IN O.P(MV) NO.1379/05 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER/APPLICANT:

¶8

JINO JOSEPH AGED 23 YEARS

¶9

S/O. JOSEPH, KUDAKUTHIYEL HOUSE, EDAVACHAL PANTHA.P.O., VAZHICHAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695572.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.ABU MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

AJAYAN KIZHAKKAUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU HOUSE, NEYYAR DAM, KATTAKKADA, PANTHA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695572.

¶13

P. SANTHOSH

¶14

S/O. PAULOSE, KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHENVEEDU,

¶15

POOTHAMKODU, PANTHA.P.O.,

¶16

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695572.

¶17

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

¶18

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14.

¶19

R3 BY ADV. SRI. P.JACOB MATHEW R BY SRI.M.A.GEORGE

¶20

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

sou.

¶22

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶23

========================= M.A.C.A. No. 1485 of 2013 ============================ Dated this the 9^th day of September, 2013

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Advocate for the 3^rd respondent.

¶26

This appeal is preferred against the order dated 20.03.2013 on I.A. No. 3496 of 2011 in O.P(MV) No. 1379 of 2005 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara (for short, “the Tribunal”). Claim petition was dismissed for default on 10.06.2011. Appellant filed I.A. No. 3496 of 2011 for its restoration. That claim was dismissed by the impugned order.

¶27

Learned Senior Advocate has pointed out that under Sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) an appeal would lie only by a person aggrieved by 'an award' of the Tribunal and hence the impugned order not being an award, the appeal is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that an O.P. (MAC) was filed against the impugned order but the Registry has returned that O.P.(MAC) as not maintainable.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Advocate for the 3^rd respondent, I am inclined to think that the appeal under Sec.173 of the Act against the impugned order

¶29

M.A.C.A No. 1485 of 2013 2

¶30

is not maintainable for the reason that it is not an 'award'. Remedy of the appellant is to challenge the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶31

Resultantly, without prejudice to the right of the appellant to challenge the impugned order by way of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, this appeal is closed. Return the original documents to the counsel for the appellants on application.

¶32

Sd/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶33

Smv

¶34

//true copy//

¶35

P.A. to Judge

Jino Joseph v. Ajayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jino Joseph v. Ajayan

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

State of Kerala Vs Gracy

The Director Vs M/S.Ananth Oil Extractions

State of Kerala Vs Jose

State of Kerala Vs Ramakrishna Pillai

State of Kerala Vs Parol Sherly

A. Dileep Vs K. Lohidsakshan