Allowed

Muhamed Ashraf K.G. v. Reliance General Insurance

Kerala HC5 Dec 2017OP (MAC)/123/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order dismissing interlocutory applications for setting aside an ex parte award and condoning delay, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000 costs to allow the Tribunal to reconsider the matter within three months.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 order set aside; I.A.2587/2015 allowed if Rs.10,000 paid; Tribunal to consider I.A.2586/2015 on merits within 3 months.

Muhamed Ashraf K.G. Vs Reliance General Insurance — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 123 of 2017 (O)

¶6

O.P(MV)NO. 40 OF 2013 OF THE PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER(S) :

¶8

MUHAMMED ASHRAF K.G.,

¶9

AGED 50 YEARS, SON OF UNNIKAMMU, KALLIVALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O. CHERUVADI, MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE - 673 661.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶12

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, II FLOOR, VISHNU BUILDINGS, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM - 682 020.

¶13

BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANTHI

¶14

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

OP (MAC).No. 123 of 2017 (O)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 11.02.2014 OF THE PRL.M.A.C.T., KOZHIKODE MADE IN O.P.(M.V)NO.40/2013

¶20

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT MADE IN MACA NO.2210/2014 AND M.A.C.A NO.612 OF 2015.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO.2586 OF 2015 IN O.P.(M.V.)NO.40 OF 2013 OF PR.M.A.C.T., KOZHIKODE.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE NO.2587 OF 2015 IN O.P.(M.V) NO.40 OF 2013 OF PR.M.A.C.T., KOZHIKODE.

¶23

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 22.09.2015 PASSED BY THE PR.M.A.C.T., KOZHIKODE IN EXHIBITS P-3 & P-4.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.

¶30

- - - - O.P.(M.A.C) No.123 of 2017

¶31

- - - - Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2017

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner, who is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-11-X 4321, who is one of the respondents in O.P.(M.V.) No. 40/2013 on the file of the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to set aside Ext.P5 order dated 22.09.2015 of the said Tribunal in I.A.Nos.2586/2015 and 2587/2015, whereby the interlocutory applications filed for setting aside the ex parte award under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 456 days in filing the appeal, stands dismissed.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for respondent/insurer.

¶35

The sole issue that arises for consideration in this Original Petition is as to whether Ext.P5 order passed by the Tribunal in I.A.Nos.2586/2015 and 2587/2015 in O.P.(M.V.)

¶36

O.P.(M.A.C) No.123 of 2017

¶37

: 2 :

¶38

40/2013 warrants interference in this original petition, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶39

I.A.No.2586/2015 is one filed by the petitioner, who is the 1^st respondent before the Tribunal, seeking an order to set aside the ex parte award dated 10.02.2014 in O.P.(M.V.) No.40/2013. The appeal filed by the insurer and that by the claimant challenging the aforesaid award were disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment of this Court, dated 26.10.2015. In paragraph 11 of Ext.P2 judgment, the Division Bench of this Court noticed the pendency of the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner herein before the Tribunal. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment reads thus:

¶40

“11. The learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle (4^th respondent in M.A.C.A. No.2210 of 2014) submits that the driver was actually having valid driving licence at the time of the accident and that the position could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal earlier. After passing the Award, it was has been sought to be corrected by filing necessary proceedings before the Tribunal, which however came to be dismissed. It is stated that further proceedings are being pursued in this regard. In the said circumstances, it is made clear that

¶41

O.P.(M.A.C) No.123 of 2017

¶42

: 3 :

¶43

finalization of these appeals will not bar the way of the owner and driver of the vehicle in pursuing further steps, if they have got a valid and sustainable case, in accordance with law.”

¶44

I.A.No.2586/2015 was accompanied by I.A.No.2587/2015,

¶45

an application for condonation of delay of 456 days in approaching the Tribunal. A reading of Ext.P5 order would show that the Tribunal rejected the aforesaid applications, since the petitioner could not satisfactorily explain the delay in filing I.A.No.2586/2015.

¶46

Though the reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P5 cannot be said to be patently illegal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to set aside Ext.P5 order on payment of a cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only), payable to the respondent/insurer.

¶47

If the petitioner, who is the 1^st respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No.40/2013, pays Rs.10,000/- as cost to the respondent/insurer, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, I.A.No.2587/2015 will stand allowed thereby condoning the delay of 456 days in filing I.A.No.2586/2015. Thereafter, the Tribunal shall consider

¶48

O.P.(M.A.C) No.123 of 2017

¶49

: 4 :

¶50

I.A.No.2586/2015 in O.P.(M.V.)No.40/2013 on merits, in the light of the observations contained in paragraph 11 of Ext.P2 judgment of this Court. The Tribunal shall pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months.

¶51

This original petition is disposed of as above.

¶52

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶53

sm/

Muhamed Ashraf K.G. v. Reliance General Insurance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhamed Ashraf K.G. v. Reliance General Insurance

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

Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. Vs Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.

C.Balakrishnan Vs Kasaragode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

A.Unnikrishnan Vs the Nilambur Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

Babu N.K. Vs the Chorode Co-Operative Bank

Nalini E.K Vs the State of Kerala

Venjramood Serviceco-Oprative Bank Ltd. No. 2419 Vs the Controlling Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act