Allowed

Rajesh Thomas v. Sunu Chacko

Kerala HC5 Jul 2016OP (MAC)/51/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge High Court in Kerala exercised writ jurisdiction under Article 227 to set aside an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that had rejected a petitioner's request for a Medical Board examination. The Court held that the Tribunal's delay-based reasoning was unsustainable and directed a reconsideration of the request.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order; direct Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to reconsider IA No.1643/2016 and pass orders within two weeks.

Rajesh Thomas Vs Sunu Chacko — 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

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2016/14TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 51 of 2016 ()

¶6

--------------------------OPMV.1576/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

RAJESH THOMAS, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.K.S. THOMAS, KALLUMKOTTATHIL VEEDU, PRAKKANAM. P.O, VARIYAPURAM MURI, ELANTHOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SMT.S.K.DEVI,

¶10

SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. SUNU CHACKO, S/O.P.M. CHACKO, KURIADATHUPARAMBIL, OTHERA WEST. P.O, THYMARAVUMKARA MURI, KUTTOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶13

2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC), TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.

¶14

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, TRIVANDRUM D.O.II, 2ND FLOOR, REMA PLAZA, NEAR AYYAPPAN COIL, S.S. COIL ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC. R3 BY ADVS. SRI.KKM.SHERIF, SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN, SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH.

¶16

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

OP (MAC).No. 51 of 2016

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION O.P.(MV)NO.1576/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶22

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS DATED 31/03/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶23

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.1643/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶24

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/04/2016 IN I.A.1643/2016 IN OP(MV)NO.1576/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

¶30

O.P.(MAC)NO.51 OF 2016

¶31

Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

This original petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in IA No.1643/2016 in OP (MV)No.1576/2010, whereby the request made by the petitioner seeking direction to examine the petitioner by a Medical Board at the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam was declined. The contention of the petitioner is that, the reasons stated by the Tribunal that the request made by the petitioner is highly belated cannot be sustained.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respective counsel for the respondents. Even though, notice served on first respondent, there is no appearance. The sole question to be considered,

¶35

¶36

O.P.(MAC)NO.51 OF 2016

¶37

whether any interference in Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal is required. The reasons shown by the Tribunal is that, the petitioner could have produced the certificate by appearing before the Medical Board by his own volition and there is delay on the part of the petitioner to approach the court. In my considered opinion the reasons assigned in the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is only appropriate that petitioner is provided with an opportunity to present himself before the Medical Board in order to prove the disabilities suffered by the petitioner in the accident. Larger interest of justice also requires the same. In that view of the matter, Ext.P4 order is set aside.

¶38

Therefore, I direct the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta to reconsider Ext.P3 application and pass orders in terms of the directions and observations made above, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, the claim petition shall be proceeded with only after passing orders as directed

¶39

¶40

O.P.(MAC)NO.51 OF 2016

¶41

above and also depending upon the order so passed.

¶42

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶43

sd/-

¶44

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶45

R.AV

Rajesh Thomas v. Sunu Chacko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Thomas v. Sunu Chacko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.K.Kunhiraman Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Sughandhi Vs State of Kerala

Kerala Land Reforms and Development Co-Operative Society Ltd. No. 4482 Vs Joint Director of Co-Operative Audit

Abdurahiman K.P. Vs the State of Kerala

Rajeev N. Vs State of Kerala

C.H.Ismail Vs the Joint Registrar (General)