Remanded

Radha v. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Kerala HC19 Mar 2019OP (MAC)/19/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, via writ petition under Article 227, directed the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to dispose of three pending interlocutory applications expeditively within two months of completing service of notices, while maintaining an interim stay on recovery proceedings against the petitioner until such orders are passed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tribunal to dispose of interlocutory applications within two months of service completion and maintain interim stay on recovery proceedings.

Radha Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY,THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 19 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1128/2016 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

RADHA, AGED 62 YEARS,W/O.YUSAF, KURAMKULATHIL, PAIMKULAM,PANJAL, CHERUTHURUTHY POST, THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR-680582. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR

¶12

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

OP (MAC).No. 19 of 2019

¶14

-2-

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner, who is the 1^st respondent in O.P.(MV) No.1128 of 2016, has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order directing the Tribunal to consider and pass appropriate orders on I.A.Nos.6256, 6257 and 6258 of 2018 in O.P.(MV) No.1128 of 2016; and also an order directing the Tribunal to keep in abeyance all further proceedings pursuant to I.A.No.4841 of 2018 in O.P(MV) No.1128 of 2016 until orders are passed in I.A.No.6256 of 2018 in O.P.(MV) No.1128 of 2016.

¶17

On 28.02.2019, when this original petition came

¶18

up for admission, this Court passed the following order;

¶19

“The Registry shall get a report from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda as to the present status of I.A.Nos.6256/2018, 6257/2018 and 6258/2018 in O.P.(MV) No.1128/2016 and also the time limit required for final disposal of those interlocutory applications.

¶20

There will be an interim stay of Revenue Recovery proceedings pursuant to the order of the Tribunal in I.A.No.4841 of 2018 in O.P.(MV) No.1128

¶21

OP (MAC).No. 19 of 2019

¶22

-3-

¶23

of 2016 for a period of one month.”

¶24

A report is received from the Motor Accidents

¶25

Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda dated 07.03.2019, which

¶26

reads thus;

¶27

“I have perused the records. Records reveal that though notice was ordered in IA Nos.6257/18, 6258/18, 6256/18 in O.P.(MV) 1828/16 on 30/11/18 and case was initially posted for return of notice on 30/12/18, petitioner has failed to take out steps in IA 6257/18 and 6258/18 in time. Counsel for R4 as already taken notice in the said IAs, but service on others are not completed. IA stands posted to 21/03/19 for return of notice. Records also reveal that bata was paid only on 01/03/19.

¶28

As regards IA 6256/18, though steps were taken, service on R3 is still not complete . R1, R2, R5 and R6 were served and set ex-parte, while R4 has entered appearance. Though substitute service was ordered against Respondent No.3 no steps has been taken. The said IA also stands posted to 21/03/19.

¶29

The interlocutory applications can be disposed of with 45 days after the completion of service. I am reporting this matter for necessary action.”

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶31

also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent

¶32

OP (MAC).No. 19 of 2019

¶33

-4-

¶34

Insurance Company.

¶35

The recovery initiated against the petitioner is one pursuant to an order passed by the Tribunal in Ext.P5 interlocutory application filed by the respondent Insurer, invoking Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Now I.A.Nos.6257 and 6258 and 6258 of 2018 filed by the petitioner seeking an order to set aside Ext.P1 ex-parte award passed in O.P(MV) No.1128 of 2016; for condoning a delay of 136 days in filing I.A.No.6257 of 2018; and seeking an order to stay all further proceedings in I.A.No.4841 of 2018, respectively are pending consideration before the Tribunal.

¶36

In such circumstances, this original petition is disposed of by directing the Tribunal to pass final orders on the aforesaid interlocutory applications, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of completion of service of notice on the respondents in those applications.

¶37

Till such orders are passed, the interim order

¶38

OP (MAC).No. 19 of 2019

¶39

-5-

¶40

granted in this writ petition shall continue to be in force.

¶41

The Tribunal shall ensure that the petitioner takes necessary steps to complete service of notice in the aforesaid interlocutory applications, within one month.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶44

bpr

¶45

OP (MAC).No. 19 of 2019

¶46

-6-

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN O.P. (MV)NO.1128/2018 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,IRINJALAKUDA DATED 11.06.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.6257/2018 IN O.P.(MV)NO.1128/2016 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKKUDA. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE C0PY OF THE I.A.6258/2018 IN O.P(MV)NO.1128/2016 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.6256/2018 IN O.P(MV)NO.1128/2016 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKKUDA. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.4841/2018 IN O.P.(MV)NO.1128/2016 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKKUDA. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION DETAILS OF THE VEHICLE HAVING REG.NO. KL-05/M-6114.

¶50

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

Radha v. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha v. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

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

Karunakaran.K, Vs M.Manoharan

Muhammed Ali Vs District Collector

V.K.Vasudevan Nair Vs Kakkodi Grama Panchayath

Suresh, Vs the District Environment Impact Authority

Madhu.K Vs the Secretary

Shajahan Vs the District Collector