K.Satheesan v. Binu Baby
Case brief
What is this about?
The Kerala High Court set aside an order dismissing a restoration application in aMotor Accident Claims Tribunal case. The Court held that the petitioner being a sole legal heir already in the party array prevented abatement and found the Tribunal failed to consider valid reasons for the counsel's late arrival, granting relief under Article 227. Relief: Ext.P3 order set aside; restoration applicat
What did the court decide?
The impugned order dismissing the restoration application is set aside. The restoration application is allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.07.2016.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2016/27TH ASHADHA, 1938
OP (MAC).No. 76 of 2016 ()
I.A. NO.2352/2014 IN OP(MV). 728/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA.
PETITIONER/2ND PETITIONER IN THE OP(MV):
K. SATHEESAN,
S/O. LATE. A. KESAVAN, AGED 43 YEARS, OORALIPARAMBIL VEEDU, VADAKKADATHUKAVU P.O., ERATHU, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA), SMT.ANNIE M.ABRAHAM.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE OP(MV):
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impleadment of the legal representative satisfied the requirement to prevent abatement when the claimant was already in the party array.
Whether the Tribunal adequately considered the reasons for non-appearance by the petitioner's counsel when restoring the claim petition.
Whether the impugned order of dismissal required interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
K. Satheesan
- respondent
Binu Baby
- respondent
Samuel Daniel
- respondent
National Insurance Company
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court