Biju v. Vinod
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court at Ernakulam, without issuing notice to respondents, disposed of a writ petition. The petitioner sought a direction for the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Attingal to dispose of an appeal within a specified time frame due to the petitioner's quadriplegic condition and urgent medical needs.
What did the court decide?
Directed MACT Attingal to dispose of O.P.(MV) No.435 of 2013 within two months from receipt of copy of this judgment.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2015/18TH ASHADHA, 1937
OP (MAC).No. 90 of 2015 (O)
OP(MV) 435/2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIM TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL.
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
BIJU,S/O. RAJU, CHEKKALAVILASOM VEEDU, AYILAM, MUDAKKAL VILLAGE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS BROTHER BINU AS THE CAPACITY OF THE NEXT FRIEND.
BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. VINOD, S/O. VAMADEVAN NAIR, VAMA VILASOM, ANACHAL, KALAMACHAL P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition can be disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents given the urgency.
Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Biju, S/O. Raju, represented by his brother Binu as next friend
- respondent
Vinod, S/O. Vamadevan Nair
- respondent
Retnakumar, S/O. Retnakaran Pillai
- respondent
The Universal Sompo Genral Insurance Co. Ltd.
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court