Allowed

Musthafa C.P. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Kerala HC4 Feb 2016OP (MAC)/13/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside tribunal orders dismissing the petitioners' applications for setting aside an ex-parte award due to lack of representation. The court imposed costs and directed the tribunal to consider the substantive applications within six weeks while staying recovery proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders Ext. P4 and P5 set aside. Rs. 5,000 costs payable to respondent's counsel. Recovery stay granted. Tribunal to consider applications on merits within 6 weeks.

Musthafa C.P. Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/15TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

O.P. (MAC).No. 13 of 2016 (O)

¶6

(ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 14.12.2015 PASSED IN I.A. NO. 2167 OF 2015 AND I.A. NO. 2168 OF 2015 IN O.P.(M.V.) NO. 740 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -II, MANJERI)

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. MUSTHAFA C.P., AGED 45 YEARS S/O. KARUTHEDATH HOUSE SHAPPINKUNNU KARAKKUNNU AMSON DESOM ERNAD TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶9

2. MUBASHEER AGED 35 YEARS S/O. ABDULLA KURIKKAL PUTHAN PEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE NELLIKKUTHU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.DINESH

¶11

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS :

¶12

1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, NILAMBUR ROAD MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶13

2. HASSANKUTTY S/O. MAMMASSAN KARUTHEDATH HOUSE SHAPPINKUNNU KARAKKUNNU AMSOM DESOM ERNAD TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶14

R1 BY ADVS. SMT. K.S.SANTHI, SC SMT. LATHA SUSAN, SC

¶15

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O.P. (MAC).No. 13 of 2016 (O)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:-

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF EX-PARTE IN O.P.(MV) 740 OF 2011 OF THE ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -II, MANJERI DATED 20.08.2014

¶20

EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF THE I.A.2167 OF 2015 IN O.P.(MV) 740 OF 2011 OF THE ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, MANJERI DATED 8.6.2015

¶21

EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 2168 OF 2015 IN O.P.(MV) 740 OF 2011 OF THE ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, MANJERI DATED 8.6.2015

¶22

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 2167 OF 2015 IN O.P.(MV) 740 OF 2011 OF THE ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, MANJERI DATED 14.12.2015

¶23

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 2168 OF 2015 IN O.P.(MV) 740 OF 2011 OF THE ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, MANJERI DATED 14.12.2015

¶24

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 28.10.1993 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER

¶25

EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 9.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,REVENUE RECOVERY, ERNAD TALUK

¶26

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS :- NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE.

DCS

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶31

O.P.(MAC). No. 13 OF 2016

¶32

Dated this the 04^th day of February, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioners are driver and owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. They suffered Ext. P1 ex-parte award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the first respondent Insurer to pay the amount to the second respondent claimant. It is stated that the amount awarded has already been paid to the second respondent claimant. Therefore no notice need be issued to the second respondent in this original petition.

¶35

The Tribunal by Ext. P1 award has directed the first respondent Insurer to realise the amount from the petitioners. This is because the first petitioner did not produce a valid and current license. The petitioners have now produced Ext. P6 license as an exhibit in this Original Petition. The petitioners also filed Exts. P2 and P3 applications before the Tribunal. The same was filed for

¶36

O.P.(MAC). No. 13 OF 2016 2

¶37

setting aside the ex-parte award after condoning the delay in seeking the same.

¶38

The Tribunal has by Exts. P4 and P5 orders dismissed Exts. P2 and P3 applications. The applications were dismissed because there was no representation for the petitioners. There was no consideration on merits of Exts. P2 and P3 applications. I am inclined to set aside Exts. P4 and P5 orders to enable the petitioners to pursue the applications on merit. Exts. P4 and P5 orders are set aside on the petitioners paying a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as costs to Smt. Latha Susan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the first respondent Insurer. The costs shall be paid within a period of two weeks from today and the acknowledgment produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in that event shall consider Exts. P2 and P3 applications on merit. The consideration shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The coercive steps evidenced by

¶39

O.P.(MAC). No. 13 OF 2016 3

¶40

Ext. P7 demand notice against the petitioners shall be put

¶41

on hold in the meanwhile.

¶42

The Original Petition is disposed of.

¶43

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶44

DCS

Musthafa C.P. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musthafa C.P. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

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

M.Chandran Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Govindan C. Vs Secretary

T.K.Chatterji Vs Secretary

P.Jayakumar Vs Antony Chacko

M.K. Sekharan Vs Antony Chacko

V.K.Sivadasan Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Muvattupuzha