Allowed

Shanavas v. Riyas Mon P.T.

Kerala HC19 Jul 2016OP (MAC)/72/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala condoned a 34-day delay in filing a cost memorandum in a motor accident compensation case. The Court set aside the Tribunal's dismissal of the condonation application, holding illness to be a sufficient reason, and directed the Tribunal to modify the award accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Cleared the petitioner's delay in filing the cost memo; set aside the impugned orders of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal; directed the Tribunal to modify the award.

Shanavas Vs Riyas Mon P.T. — 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 19TH DAY OF JULY 2016/28TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 72 of 2016 (O)

¶6

IA NO. 4133/2015 AND IA NO. 4134/2015 IN OP(MV) NO. 1095/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER :

¶8

SHANAVAS

¶9

AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED (LATE), VENGASERI HOUSE, ERANHIMANGAD P.O., NILAMBUR (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

¶11

SRI.A.SANTHOSHKUMAR SMT.KAVERY S. THAMPI

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :

¶13

1. RIYAS MON P.T., S/O. MOHAMMED, PARAYANTHODIKA HOUSE, MARUTHA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 333.

¶14

2. SUBAIR S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, 12/308, MADATHIKUNNU HOUSE, MARUTHA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 333.

¶15

3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, KILIYAMANNIL PLAZA, UP HILL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676505.

¶16

R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD

¶17

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

...2/-

¶20

OP (MAC).No. 72 of 2016 (O)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.12.2015 IN I.A. NO. 4133/2015 IN OP(MV) NO. 1095 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI.

¶24

EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.12.2015 IN I.A NO. 4134/2015 IN OP(MV) NO. 1095 OF 2010 ON THE FILED OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI.

¶25

EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IA NO. 4133 OF 2015 IN OP(MV) NO. 1095 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUBAL, MANJERI FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23.11.2015.

¶26

EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IA NO. 4134 OF 2015 IN OP(MV) NO. 1095 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23.11.2015.

¶27

EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 12.10.2015 IN OP.NO. 1095 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶33

O.P.(MAC) No.72 of 2016

¶34

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 19^th day of July, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Petitioner was the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.1095 of 2010 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri filed under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. The Tribunal passed an award granting an amount of Rs.1,59,000/- on 12.10.2015. However, the petitioner could not file the cost statement within 7 days, as provided under Rule 196 of the Civil Rules of Practice, as he was laid up with stomach pain.

¶37

Therefore, petitioner filed I.A.No.4133 of 2015 to condone the delay of 34 days in filing the cost statement and I.A.No.4134 of 2015 to modify the award by including the cost. I.A.No.4133 of 2015 was dismissed finding that the reason stated therein was not sufficient. Since the said application was dismissed, the application to modify the award was also dismissed. It is thus aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P2 orders passed by the Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court

¶38

¶39

O.P.(MAC) No.72 of 2016

¶40

by filing this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, as provided under Rule 196 of the Civil Rules of Practice, the Court is vested with powers to condone the delay caused in filing the cost memo. On a reading of Rule 196, nowhere it is stated that the delay occurred in submitting the cost statement can be condoned. However, there is also no prohibition created under the Rules disabling the Court from condoning the delay. Admittedly, the award was passed with proportionate cost. Therefore, as of right, petitioner was entitled to file a cost memo. On a perusal of Ext.P1 order, it is categoric and clear that it is a non-speaking order. The Tribunal has only stated that there are no sufficient reasons mentioned in the application so as to condone the delay. Petitioner has produced the application filed before the Tribunal in this Original Petition, which shows that petitioner was laid up due to stomach pain. Since the petitioner has met with a road accident, the submissions made in the application

¶43

O.P.(MAC) No.72 of 2016 3

¶44

submitted before the Tribunal to condone the delay of 34 days cannot be said to be not sufficient reason. In my view, there are sufficient reasons made by the petitioner in the application to condone the delay.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in ' Muhammed v. Munsiff, Tirur ' [1997 (2) KLT 412], wherein this question was considered and a passing observation is available in paragraph 6 to the effect that as per the power provided under Rule 196, delay can be condoned for submitting the cost memo. This is also taken note of by me.

¶46

Therefore, it is only just and proper that Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner to condone the delay of 34 days in submitting cost memo is condoned. Therefore, I set aside Exts.P1 and P2 orders of the Tribunal and allow Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay.

¶47

Therefore, there will be a direction to the M.A.C.T., Manjeri to accept the cost memo submitted by the petitioner and modify the award in terms of the said cost memo and in accordance with law.

¶48

¶49

O.P.(MAC) No.72 of 2016

¶50

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶51

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶52

//true copy//

¶53

P.S. to Judge

¶54

St/19.07.2016

Shanavas v. Riyas Mon P.T.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanavas v. Riyas Mon P.T.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harikrishnan Vs Suhara

K.Satheesan Vs Binu Baby

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Sivaprabha and Another Vs Joint Registrar, Pathanamthitta and Anot

Tom C.Varghese Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

S.M.Iqbal Vs the Kollam District Co-Operative Bank, Kollam