Dismissed

Antony v. the Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Kerala HC21 Jan 2013MACA/2571/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a motor accident claims appeal against Tribunal's judgment. Prior to this, the court rejected a separate petition seeking to condone a 7-year delay, finding the appellants guilty of wilful negligence for not filing the appeal in time.

What did the court decide?

The petition for condonation of delay was dismissed. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

Antony Vs the Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013/1ST MAGHA 1934

¶5

MACA.No. 2571 of 2012 (B)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OPMV 245/2000 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 21-03-2006

¶7

APPELLANTS / RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 : -

¶8

1. ANTONY, S/O.VAREED, THERATTIL HOUSE, KALLUR VILLAGE, NAYARANGADI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶9

2. K.R.THOMAS, S/O.RAPPAI, KACHAPPILLY HOUSE, CHENGALOOR P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶11

RESPONDENT / 3^rd RESPONDENT : -

¶12

THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, PERINCHERY BUILDING, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR 680 001.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI. ZIYAD RAHMAN BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE, SC

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

MACA.No. 2571 of 2012 (B)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES :

¶18

ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE PARTICULARS OF THE 1^st APPELLANT ISSUED FROM THE SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE IRINJALAKUDA.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶24

M.A.C.A.NO. 2571 OF 2012 &

¶25

C.M.APPL.NO.3046 OF 2012

¶26

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2013

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

C.M.Appl.No.3046/2012 is filed seeking to condone

¶29

the delay of 2339 days in filing the appeal. I have gone through the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for condonation of delay. No sufficient reasons are stated for condoning the inordinate delay. Appellants are respondents 1 and 2 in O.P.(MV).No.245/2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. They remained ex parte. This appeal was filed after seven years from the date of disposal of the claim petition. Steps are initiated by the Insurance Company to realise the award amount from the appellants. I find that there is wilful negligence or latches on the part of the appellants in filing the appeal in time. No grounds are made out for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the delay petition is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

¶30

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.

¶31

kcv.

Antony v. the Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antony v. the Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd.

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

M.Gurumurthy Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

The Regional Director, Esi Corporation Vs M/S.Rohini Plasto Pack

The Regional Director, Esi Corpn. Vs Rekha Nandagopal

Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala

R.Haripriya Vs the Branch Manager, the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Vijayan V.G. Vs Mariya Susa