The High Court set aside the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal order rejecting a plea for enlargement of time for filing a costs statement, holding that bona fide inadvertence justifies the delay and remitting the matter to the Tribunal for enlargement of time.
Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to Tribunal to enlarge time for submitting statement of costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2015/22ND ASHADHA, 1937
OP (MAC).No. 89 of 2015 (O)
[I.A.NO.728/2014 DATED 14.02.2014 IN O.P(MV).NO.341/2006 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD]
PETITIONER:
BIJU P.GEORGE AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE PETER, SUVISESHA BHAVAN, CHITTUR.P.O, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT, SRI.K.N.ABHILASH.
RESPONDENTS:
1. RAMAR.V,S/O. T. VELAIYA, AGED 45 YEARS, I/X3, MANNUR,PALLACHI TALUK, COIMBTORE DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU-642 002.
2. K.SAKTHIVEL,S/O.KARUPPASWAMY, AGED 30 YEARS, 3/1, ALAGIRI CHETTYPALAYAM, SULAKKAL, POLLACHI TALUK, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU.
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SREEVALLI BUILDINGS, ANIKODE, CHITTUR.P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA-678 101.
R3 BY ADV.SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN.
THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Prv/2.
O.P(MAC).NO.89 OF 2015 (O):
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AWARD DATED 24-01-2014 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD IN OP(MV) NO. 341/2006.
EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION IN I.A. NO. 728/2014 IN O.P(MV).NO. 341/2006 BEFORE THE MACT PALAKKAD.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
Prv/2.
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P(MAC) No.89 of 2015
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the
rejection of the petitioner's application for enlargement of time for submitting the memo of costs.
₹17,07,500/- with 95 interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation with right to recover the costs for the proceedings. The petitioner points out that as per Rule 196(1) of the Civil Rules of Practice, statement of costs should be filed within 7 days. In the instant case, the petitioner filed statement of costs within 3 days.
refused by the Tribunal. The petitioner points out that as per Rule
196(1), there is no restriction on the court to receive an application
OP(MAC)89/15 -:2:-
filed after 7 days stipulated therein. The court has got power to extend the time for filing the statement of cost. It is also provided in said rule that if any party makes default in filing the statement, the officer of the court shall prepare a statement of the amount of the institution fee if any, and the pleader's fee allowable to the said party, if duly certified; it is alleged. According to the petitioner, every party shall be entitled to inspect and take a copy of the said statement. It is with this background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
OP(MAC)89/15
-:3:-
memo of costs could not be submitted in time.
As the petitioner shall not be left to suffer on account of
such laches, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get the relief prayed for. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting Ext.P2 application is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal directing to enlarge the time for submitting the statement of costs.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE
krj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for enlargement of time to file a statement of costs can be entertained even after the statutory period of 7 days has expired.
Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal committed an error in rejecting the petitioner's prayer for extension of time due to bona fide inadvertence by the advocate clerk.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Biju P. George
Ramar V
K. Sakthivel
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
