Allowed

Balakrishnan. C v. Ramesh Kumar

Kerala HC3 Jul 2015OP (MAC)/87/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was not justified in mechanically rejecting an application for court fee exemption. The court directed the tribunal to renumber the claim petition and exempt the petitioners from paying court fee initially, to be recovered later from the award under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to take the claim petition on files and number it, and to exempt the petitioners from paying court fee for the time being, to be realized from the amount aw

Balakrishnan. C Vs Ramesh Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2015/12TH ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 87 of 2015 (O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.6.2015 IN IA NO. 2810/2015 IN UNNUMBERED OP(M.V.) OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD.

¶7

PETITIONERS/CLAIMANTS :

¶8

1. BALAKRISHNANAN C.,

¶9

S/O. CHINNAPPAN, AGED 57 YEARS

¶10

PONKATTUPURA, THOMBUKUNNAM SOORIYA NAGAR, KANJIKODE,

¶11

PUDUSSERY CENTRAL VILLAGE

¶12

PALAKKAD.

¶13

2. RAJAKUMARAN C.,

¶14

S/O. CHINNAPPAN, AGED 52 YEARS

¶15

PONKATTUPURA, THOMBUKUNNAM SOORIYA NAGAR, KANJILODE,

¶16

PUDUSSERY CENTRAL VILLAGE

¶17

PALAKKAD.

¶18

3. KRISHNAN E.R.,

¶19

S/O. RAMAN, AGED 55 YEARS

¶20

ECHAMPURA, CHEMMANAMKADU, KANJIKODE P.O.,

¶21

PUDUSSERY CENTRAL VILLAGE, PALAKKAD.

¶22

4. SATHISH KUMAR E.K.,

¶23

S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 27 YEARS

¶24

ECHAMPURA, CHEMMANAMKADU KANJIKODE P.O., PUDUSSERY CENTRAL VILLAGE

¶25

PALAKKAD.

¶26

5. SAJITHA K.,

¶27

D/O KRISHNAN, AGED 26 YEARS

¶28

ECHAMPURA, CHEMMANAMKADU KANJIKODE P.O.,

¶29

PUDUSSERY CENTRAL VILLAGE

¶30

PALAKKAD

¶31

NOW RESIDING AT C/O SATHISH M.C. (HUSBAND)

¶32

MADATHIL, PANAPARAMBU,

¶33

KADUKKAMKUNNAM, MALAMPUZHA

¶34

BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN

¶35

SMT.P.G.BABITHA

¶36

...2/-

¶37

OP (MAC).No. 87 of 2015 (O) -2-

¶38

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶39

1. RAMESH KUMAR S/O. PONNU CHAMI, AGED 24 YEARS 7/10, CHIKKARASAMPALAYAM MAIN ROAD SATHYAMANGALAM, ERODE, TAMIL NADU-638 001.

¶40

2. BHARTI AXA GERNERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., FIRST FLOOR, FERNS ICON, SY. NO. 28 DODDANAKKUNDI, BANGLORE-560 037

¶41

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

¶43

...3/-

¶44

OP (MAC).No. 87 of 2015 (O)

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶47

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF UN-NUMBERED OP (MV) PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD.

¶48

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO 2810/15 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS.

¶49

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶54

O.P.(MAC) No. 87 of 2015

¶55

Dated this the 3^rd day of July, 2015.

¶56

JUDGMENT

¶57

Petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of application submitted by them before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad for claiming exemption from payment of court fee.

¶58

Petitioners are the claimants in a claim petition

¶59

before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. The petitioners allege that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. They preferred the claim petition seeking exemption from payment of court fee. The Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules enable the Tribunal to grant exemption exercising its discretion. However, the Tribunal mechanically passed an order refusing exemption. It is with this background, the petitioners have come up before this Court.

¶60

The learned Tribunal by the impugned order, (endorsement on Ext.P1) dated 18.6.2015 rejected the application by a single line order and directed the petitioners to pay the full court fee.

¶61

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

¶62

O.P.(MAC) No. 87 of 2015

¶63

-2-

¶64

that the claim arose out of the death of one Janaki, of whom claimants are the legal representatives. The original claim was for a sum of Rs.38,53,000/-, which is subsequently corrected to Rs.8 lakhs. The court fee payable by the petitioners would be below Rs.10,000/-. As per Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, payment of Rs.50,000/- is rest assured irrespective of the negligence on the part of the claimants or on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, this Court is of the definite view that the learned Tribunal was not justified in insisting for payment at this point of time.

¶65

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad to take the claim petition on files and number the same and issue notice to the respondents exempting the petitioners from paying the court fee for the time being. It shall be open to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad to realize the court fee from the amount that would be awarded to the petitioners.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶68

JUDGE

¶69

Scl.

Balakrishnan. C v. Ramesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balakrishnan. C v. Ramesh Kumar

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

Jaimon James Vs the Kidangoor Grama Panchayath

Kerala Independent Schools Association Vs Secretary,Cbse

Musaliar Education Trust Vs All India Council for Technical Educatio

Chacko Vs Kanakam

Secretary, Mother Theresa Memorial Trust Vs Cbse

N.Suresh Vs the State of Kerala