Remanded

Babu E.T. v. Rahoof

Kerala HC7 Jul 2016OP (MAC)/60/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that dismissed a petitioner's amendment application. The Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the application within one month, noting that the prior dismissal ignored relevant facts and precedential context.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the amendment application was set aside; the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to reconsider the application within one month.

Babu E.T. Vs Rahoof — 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

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2016/16TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 60 of 2016 (O)

¶6

---------------------------(I.A.NO.1093/2016 IN OP(MV).NO. 1505/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR)

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. BABU E.T., AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.THOMMY, RESIDING AT EARALLY HOUSE,

¶9

SUB JAIL ROAD, ALUVA.

¶10

2. MOLLY NICHOLAS, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.THOMMY, RESIDING AT EARALLY HOUSE, SUB JAIL ROAD, ALUVA.

¶11

3. BEENA, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.THOMMY, RESIDING AT EARALLY HOUSE, SUB JAIL ROAD, ALUVA.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN SRI.J.RAMKUMAR SRI.N.SATHEESH KUMAR(NEMMARA) SMT.AMRIN FATHIMA

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1. RAHOOF, S/O.ALI, JAMEELA MANZIL, NEDUMBASSERY, ALUVA, NOW RESIDING AT CHAWPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA-683 108.

¶15

2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, KABU PLAZA, BOAT JETTY, ALLEPPEY, PIN-688001.

¶16

R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.RAMANAND

¶17

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

OP (MAC).No. 60 of 2016 (O)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITON IN OP(MV) 1505/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR

¶23

P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPARTE AWARD DTD 23/7/2014 PASSED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLES TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR

¶24

P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.1093/2016 DTD 3/3/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

¶25

P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN IA NO.1093/2016 IN OP(MV) NO.1505/2010

¶26

P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 30/3/2016 IN IA NO.1093/2016.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶33

O.P.(MAC)No.60 of 2016

¶34

----------------------------------------

¶35

Dated this the 7^th day of July, 2016

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Petitioners herein are petitioners/claimants in I.A.No.1093/2016 in O.P.(MV)No.1505/2010 on the files

¶38

of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. First respondent is the owner of vehicle involved in the accident. Petitioners have submitted Ext.P3 application seeking amendment of the claim petition. The said application was dismissed as per Ext.P5 order by the Tribunal dated 30.3.2016. The basic reason provided in Ext.P5 order is that, the same will change the nature and character of the petition and more over prejudice will be caused to other side. It is also held that, since the case is posted for trial, the amendment cannot be allowed. That

¶39

apart, it is also held that, the issues are settled once and the evidence of the petitioner was recorded. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get the amendment application allowed.

¶40

O.P.(MAC)No.60 of 2016 2

¶41

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and

¶42

learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶43

In view of the limited order I propose to pass and since the order may not affect the first respondent materially, notice to the first respondent is dispensed with.

¶44

On an evaluation of facts and circumstances and rival submissions made across the Bar and pleadings and documents on record, I am satisfied that Ext.P5 order passed by the Tribunal is not taking into account the attendant facts and law involved in the subject matter. Even though an ex parte award was passed, later, the same was set aside by the Tribunal and therefore, the matter is at large before the Tribunal, which ought to have considered, the amendment petition submitted by the petitioner. Moreover, interest of justice requires that, all matters to be considered by

¶45

the Tribunal in the original proceedings in entirety and merits.

¶46

O.P.(MAC)No.60 of 2016

¶47

¶48

In that view of the matter I set aside Ext.P5

¶49

and remand the matter to the Tribunal. Therefore, The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor is directed to re-consider Ext.P3 amendment application submitted by the petitioner and take a decision on the same, in accordance with law, at the earliest and at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If required, petitioner will be at liberty to move necessary application for advancing the case.

¶50

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶53

dlk/7/7/

Babu E.T. v. Rahoof

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu E.T. v. Rahoof

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

Rajesh Thomas Vs Sunu Chacko

Abdurahiman K.P. Vs the State of Kerala

Rajeev N. Vs State of Kerala

Rahim Vs the State of Kerala

Kelambeth Gangadharan Vs the Tellicherry Taluk Co-Operative Marketing and Processing Society

K.P. Hamsa Vs State of Kerala