Quashed

Pilakool Rahim v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2016WP(C)/11009/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal order in I.A. No. 5518/2004 which directed the insurer to deposit Rs. 16,375 towards the petitioner's claim. The High Court set aside the order due to lack of reasoned calculation and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the insurer's contentions and determine the correct deposit amount within three months.

What did the court decide?

Order of MACT in Ext.P5 set aside; Tribunal directed to reopen I.A. 5518/2004, consider insurer contentions, arrive at correct deposit amount, and pass fresh orders within three months.

Pilakool Rahim Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/25TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 11009 of 2006 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

PILAKOOL RAHIM, S/O.LATE SOOPPI, AGED 29 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT PILAKOOL HOUSE, CHERUPURAM AMSOM DESOM P.O.CHERUPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR SMT.A.S.SUVITHA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., SECRETARIATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER MOTOR 3RD PARTY CLAIMS CELL, VETTUKATTIL, BUILDINGS M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

3. PILAKOOL MOIDEEN, S/O.KUNHAMMI, AGED 56 YEARS, KARKKANDY HOUSE, P.O.CHERUPURAM KAKKATTIL, BADAGARA-673 512.

¶13

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI REJI JOSEPH

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 11009 of 2006 (I)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXIBITS

¶18

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL THALASSERYIN O.P.(M.V)NO. 2021/1993 DATED 14.02.1997.

¶19

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN M.F.A. NO. 1035/1998 DATED 24.10.2002.

¶20

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED ON I.A.NO. 5518/2004 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY.

¶21

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT INSURANCE COMPANY I.A.NO. 5518/2004.

¶22

EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 5518/2004 DATED 19.05.2005 ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION.

¶23

RESPONDENTS EXIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

LSN

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶28

W.P.(C). No. 11009 of 2006

¶29

---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery to reopen I.A No. 5518/2004 and to direct the second respondent to deposit the entire amount with interest as claimed by the petitioner in Ext.P3 petition.

¶32

The petitioner was the claimant in O.P.(MV) No. 20121/1993 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. By Ext.P1 award he was held entitled to an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- with interest and costs. The Award was confirmed in appeal by Ext.P2 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P3 petition for a direction for recovery of an amount of Rs.61,345/-with interest from 01.10.2004. The second respondent Insurance Company had filed a counter statement showing computation of interest and contended that only an amount of Rs.11,273/- would be due to the petitioner according to their calculation. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 19.05.2005 passed an order holding that the balance amount due to the petitioner is Rs. 16,375/- and the

¶33

W.P.(C). No. 11009 of 2006

¶34

¶35

second respondent therein, the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the said amount before the tribunal within one month from the date of order. This is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent.

¶37

Though respondents 2 and 3 have been served with notice in this writ petition, there is no appearance today on the appeal. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no reasoning of calculation is forthcoming in support of the finding of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that the amount due to the petitioner is Rs.16,575/-. The amount does not represent what has been claimed by the petitioner or the amount shown in the counter statement filed by the insurer. In the above circumstances, it is impossible to find out as to how the amount has been arrived at.

¶38

In the above circumstances, the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Ext.P5 is set aside. The tribunal is directed to take up Ext.P3, consider the contentions of the insurer in Ext.P4 and to arrive at the amount which is to be deposited by the insurer and pass fresh orders on I.A No.

¶39

W.P.(C). No. 11009 of 2006

¶40

¶41

5518/2004 within a period of three months from the date of

¶42

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶44

Sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN, Judge

¶45

lsn

Pilakool Rahim v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pilakool Rahim v. State of Kerala

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

Mammen Varghese Vs Cochin Corporation Rep.by Its Secretary

City Centre Vs Managing Partner,City Centre

Rajasekhara Kurup Vs State of Kerala

The Assistant Provident Fund Commnr. Vs Iyer & Mahesh

The Superintendent Vengathanam Estate Vs the General Secretary

A.K.Sreekumar Vs the Labour Court