Allowed

Rasiya v. Lasitha

Kerala HC19 Aug 2016OP (MAC)/108/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a writ petition challenging an order by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Petitioners contended they never signed a Lok Adalath settlement. The Court noted the award was only signed by counsel, not parties. It set aside the Tribunal order and directed the Tribunal to proceed with the claim on merits.

What did the court decide?

ExtP4 order of the Tribunal set aside; application allowed; Tribunal directed to proceed with OP(MV)No.932/2009 and dispose on merits within four months.

Rasiya Vs Lasitha — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/28TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 108 of 2015 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.7.2011 IN OPMV 932/2009 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. RASIYA, AGED 49, W/O.LATE MOITHEENKUNJU, VAISYAM HOUSE, THALIKULAM PO, BEACH ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. MIDHUN, AGED 28,

¶10

S/O.LATE MOITHEENKUNJU, VAISYAM HOUSE, THALIKULAM PO, BEACH ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

3. MISHAD, AGED 18,

¶12

S/O.LATE MOITHEENKUNJU, VAISYAM HOUSE, THALIKULAM PO, BEACH ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY

¶14

SMT.K.K.JYOTHILAKSHMY SRI.SANIL JOSE

¶15

RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

1. LASITHA

¶17

W/O.MOHANAN, THOTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALLACHIRA PO, THRISSUR-680 561.

¶18

2. SHIBU

¶19

S/O.SANKARANARAYANAN, CHEMBILAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NATTIKA PO, THRISSUR, PIN-680 518.

¶20

3. THE MANAGER

¶21

BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOCHI BRANCH, PIN-682017.

¶22

R3 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER R1 BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.A.R.NIMOD

¶23

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

OP (MAC).No. 108 of 2015 ()

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶27

P1 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF OP(MV) NO.932/2009, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR.

¶28

P2 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AWARD DT 20-7-2011 PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN PASSED ON THAT DATE IN OP(MV) NO.932/2009, MACT, THRISSUR.

¶29

P3 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF IA 7283/2001 IN OP(MV) NO.932/2009, MACT, THRISSUR.

¶30

P4 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY ORDER DT 29-8-2014 IN IA.NO.7283/2011 IN OP(MV) NO.932/2009, MACT, THRISSUR.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶37

O.P.(MAC)No.108 of 2015

¶38

Dated this the 19^th day of August, 2016

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

Petitioners are petitioners in OP(MV)No.932/2009 on

¶41

the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Thrissur. On the basis of an alleged settlement in Lok Adalath an award was passed in terms of settlement, evident from Ext.P2. However, petitioners have later filed Ext.P3 application before the Tribunal and contended that petitioners did not sign the settlement before Lok Adalath. However, the Tribunal dismissed the said I.A.No.7283/2011 holding that, the award of Adalath has become final and hence restoration petition is dismissed.

¶42

It is in this background this writ petition is filed seeking interference with Ext.P4 order passed by the Tribunal.

¶43

In view of the peculiar circumstances put forth by the petitioners, documents from the Tribunal was called for, which contains the award proceedings before

¶44

O.P.(MAC)No.108 of 2015

¶45

¶46

the Lok Adalath, Thrissur in O.P.(MV)No. 932/2009 dated 20.7.2011. On a perusal of the said award it is categoric and clear that, petitioners have not signed in the award, the same is only signed by counsel for the petitioners, members of the Adalath, counsel for the third respondent and counsel for the Insurance Company. Therefore, admittedly, it cannot be said that petitioners have subscribed to the settlement that took place before the Adalath. The Tribunal has lost sight of these material facts and dismissed the interlocutory application filed by petitioners.

¶47

Taking into account the totality of the circumstances and the contentions put forth by respective counsel in this original petition, I am satisfied that Ext.P4 order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained, since, on perusal of the award it is specific, petitioners have not subscribed their signatures and the award is therefore not binding on the petitioners. In that view of the matter, I

¶48

O.P.(MAC)No.108 of 2015

¶49

¶50

set aside Ext.P4 order and allow the application and direct

¶51

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur to proceed with OP(MV)No.932/2009 and take a decision on the same, in accordance with law.

¶52

However, since the subject matter is pending consideration from the year 2009, there will be a direction to dispose of the claim petition on merits, at the earliest, and at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶53

Registry is directed to return the original documents to the Tribunal forth with. The respective Insurance Company is given liberty to move necessary application seeking adjustment of the amount already deposited in terms of the award.

¶54

Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶57

dlk/19/8/

Rasiya v. Lasitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasiya v. Lasitha

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

A.K.Thajudeen Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Joseph Thomas Vs Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

M.a.Kharim Vs Sub Inspector of Police

The Chairman/Managing Director Vs P.I.Sreedharan

Kollam Royal Park Hotel & Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

P.B. Sajeev Vs State of Kerala