Allowed

Sreeja Sivasankaran v. v.Krishnan

Kerala HC7 Sept 2016OP (MAC)/1105/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this original petition under Article 226, the High Court examined the Tribunal's order dismissing an amendment application to a claim petition. The Court allowed the amendment to incorporate a salary claim, quashing the impugned order to prioritize avoiding prejudice to the claimant. The petitioner was directed to incorporate the amendment within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Tribunal dismissing the amendment application set aside; amendment allowed; petitioner directed to incorporate amendment within two weeks.

Sreeja Sivasankaran Vs v.Krishnan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | 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 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/16TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 1105 of 2012 (O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 2153/2004 of M.A.C.T.,ERNAKULAM DATED

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. SREEJA SIVASANKARAN D/O.LATE SIVASANKARAN, W/O.PRASAD, R/A.50/1146A RAILWAY STATION ROAD, EDSAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM

¶9

2. MANOJ KUMAR, S/O.LATE SIVASANKARAN, 'SASWATH', POODIKALATHIL HOUSE, THEKKUMURI, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN

¶11

SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

*1. V.KRISHNAN GEETHA AGENCY, VADAKKANCHERRY P.O., ALAKKAD DISTRIC674371 (DIED, LR's IMPLEADED)

¶14

2. M.SUDHAKARAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, 5/2B4, THAZHATHU VEETIL, TARUR KARA, TARUR VILLAGE, ALATHUR VILLAGE,PALAKKAD DIST-678 363

¶15

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, METRO PLAZA, OPPOSITE NORTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM-682018

¶16

4. UNITED INDIA INSURACNE COMPANY, 2ND FLOOR, PMS BUILDING, ELOOR ROAD, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM-682436

¶17

*ADDL. R5 AND R6 IMPLEADED

¶18

*ADDL.R5 M.KAMALAM, W/O.LATE V. KRISHNAN, AGED 61, RESIDING AT ARRISSERY HOUSE, HOUSE NO.15/93, TARUR P.O., PIN 678 544, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶19

OP (MAC).No. 1105 of 2012 (O)

¶20

*ADDL.R6

¶21

PRAMEELA, D/O. LATE V.KRISHNAN AND W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT ARRISSERY HOUSE, HOUSE NO.15/93, TARUR P.O., PIN 678 544, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶22

**(ADDL.R5 AND R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LR'S OF THE DECEASED R1 AS PER ORDER DATED 12.4.2016 IN I.A.NO.471/2016)*

¶23

R4 BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)

¶24

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

OP (MAC).No. 1105 of 2012 (O)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶28

EXT.P1:TRUE COPY OF IA 1092/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN OP MV 2153/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT'S CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (EDAMALAYAR)ERNAKULAM

¶29

EXT.P2:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 9/3/2012 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE MOTOR ACCIDENT'S CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ERNAKLAM IN EXT.P1 APPLICATION.

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶35

OP(MAC) No. 1105 of 2012

¶36

Dated this the 7^th day of September, 2016

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Original petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, who is a claimant in OP (MV) No.2153/2004 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam challenging the order in I.A.No.1092/2012, whereby the request made by the petitioner seeking amendment to the claim petition was declined by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal reads as

¶39

follows:-

¶40

“Heard the petitioner and the respondents in this unusually lengthy time taken targeted cases. After long lapse of 8 years even at the stage when the evidence is over when amendment petition filed that is creating only impression as pointed by other side that this is only to protract delay and just to complicate the evidence procedure. There is no reason for not filing this earlier. Hence for the above reasons the amendment petition dismissed. No order-costs.”

¶41

It is thus challenging the order so passed by the Tribunal, this original petition is filed.

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶43

¶44

OP(MAC) No. 1105 of 2012

¶45

counsel for the third and 4^th respondent Insurance company also and perused the documents and pleadings.

¶46

Perusal of Ext.P2 impugned order of the Tribunal

¶47

it is seen that, the same was dismissed on the reason that the application is belated. However, it can be seen that the petitioner seeks to incorporate an additional claim of Rs.11,504/- towards salary which could not be incorporated in the claim petition. Therefore, the claim is to be considered by the Tribunal taking into account the exact salary received by the petitioner. In a proceedings like the one, normal rule is to allow the amendment in order to avoid any sort of prejudice to the claimant. In that view of the matter the amendment sought for, in my view is genuine and is entitled to be allowed.

¶48

Therefore, Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner seeking amendment is allowed. Consequently, Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal is set aside. Petitioner shall incorporate the amendment in the claim petition within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment

¶49

OP(MAC) No. 1105 of 2012 3

¶50

and thereafter Tribunal shall proceed with the matter and make every endeavor to attain a logical conclusion, in the claim petition at the earliest, untramelled by any findings or observations made above. The Tribunal will be at liberty to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to get interest during the pendency of the original petition before this Court.

¶51

Original petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶52

Sd/

¶53

SHAJI P. CHALY,JUDGE

¶54

dlk/7/9/

Sreeja Sivasankaran v. v.Krishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreeja Sivasankaran v. v.Krishnan

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

Muralidharan P.K. Vs N.Prasanth

K.G. Gopinathan Vs the Kjerala State Co-Operativew Employees Pension Board

Biju Sreedharan Vs the Secretary Regional Transport Officer

K.S.Vijayakumar Vs Antony Chacko

Zakheer Hussain Vs Union of Territory of Lakshadweep

Shibu Vs the Regional Transport Authority