Remanded

Venu v. Pramod P.S.

Kerala HC1 Jul 2016OP (MAC)/36/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In O.P.(MAC) No.36 of 2016, the petitioner challenged the dismissal of a restoration application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal due to lack of appearance. The High Court directed the Tribunal to restore the specific application and consider it within one month, noting the petitioner failed to file the standard restoration remedy.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur, to restore Impugned Order/IEtpleIA No.3763/2013 to files and consider same within one month.

Venu Vs Pramod P.S. — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2016/10TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 36 of 2016 (O)

¶6

O.P(MV)NO. 513/2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER :

¶8

VENU,

¶9

AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.CHATHUNNI, MANNARAKKAL, VALIYAPARAMBU P.O, THAZHEDEVARTHODI, PULIKKAL, MALAPPURAM-673 637.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :

¶12

1. PRAMOD P.S., PARAMMAL HOUSE, KOONAMOOCHI P.O, THRISSUR-680 504.

¶13

2. JYOTHISH E.S., S/O.SUBRAMANIAN E.K., ERAKKATTUKUZHI HOUSE, THANDILAM, VELLATTANJOOR P.O, THRISSUR-680 601.

¶14

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THIRUVAMBADI DEWASWAM BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, ROUND WEST, THRISSUR.

¶15

R3 BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANTHI

¶16

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

OP (MAC).No. 36 of 2016 (O)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶21

P1 : COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION IN O.P(MV) NO.513 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR DATED 09-06-2012.

¶22

P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-08-2013 IN O.P(MV) NO.513 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR.

¶23

P3 : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT WITH PETITION I.A.NO. 3763/2013 IN O.P(MV) NO.513 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR DATED 25-09-2013.

¶24

P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO.4158 OF 2013 IN I.A NO.3763 OF 2013 IN O.P(MV) NO. 513 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR DATED 24-10-2013.

¶25

P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO.3763 OF 2013 IN O.P(MV) NO.513 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR DATED 04-02-2014.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J. ----------------------------------------------- O.P.(M.A.C) No.36 of 2016

¶32

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 1^st day of July, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Petitioner is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.513/2012 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur. Admittedly the said claim petition was dismissed as per Ext.P2 award holding that the petitioner has not paid necessary bata to issue process to respondents 1 and 2. Thereupon petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 application seeking restoration of the claim petition after payment of the bata. Thereafter, when the case was posted on 4.2.2014, there was no representation for the petitioner and therefore, Ext.P3 I.A. filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal by Ext.P5 order. It is thus challenging Ext.P5, this original petition is filed.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Even though notice was served on respective respondents, there is no appearance.

¶36

O.P.(MAC) No.36 of 2016

¶37

¶38

Normally when an application for restoration of application is dismissed for want of proper prosecution, the remedy available to the petitioner was to file an application to restore the said application for consideration of the court. That is not done by the petitioner. However, since the subject matter is relating to the year 2012 and application was dismissed by the court as early as on 4.2.2014, I think it is only appropriate that a direction is issued to the Tribunal to restore Ext.P3, I.A. No.3763/2013 to its files and consider the same in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the respective parties. Any how a decision shall be taken on the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶40

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶41

smv 01.07.2016

Venu v. Pramod P.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venu v. Pramod P.S.

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

Sreenivasan Vs the Secretary, Rta, Thrissur

Kishore Vs Amutha S

Shaila Uthaman Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam

Sunil C.G. Vs Regional Transport Authority

Mohammedkutty Vs Smt.Adheela Abdulla, Revenue Divisional Oficer

Asokan T. Vs Shakeer Ali