Remanded

Davis v. Ratheesh.P.v.

Kerala HC17 Jun 2019OP (MAC)/3/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This OP=2; dismissed; The court directed the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to reconsider the dismissal of the petitioner's application for converting a Section 166 claim to Section 163(A) and ordered the restoration application to be taken up within a month.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal directed to consider I.A.No.4188 of 2019 for restoration and reconsider the conversion application.

Davis Vs Ratheesh.P.v. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

OP (MAC).No.3 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OPMV 1515/2010 of ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR DATED 17-11-2018

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

DAVIS AGED 57 YEARS ELUVATHINGAL PADAVAN HOUSE, KODUNNUR.P.O, THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM SMT.THUSHARA PAILY

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 RATHEESH.P.V. S/O.VASUDEVAN,PATTATT HOUSE P.O, VELLANCHIRA,THRISSUR.

¶12

2 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY PARK HOUSE, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR.

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,UNITED INDIA INSU

¶15

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OP (MAC).No.3 of 2019

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner, who is the 1^st claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1515/2010 on the of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P1 order by which petitioner's application for amendment of the petition, by deleting Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and substituting Section 163 (A) in its place was dismissed. Pending consideration of this Original Petition, the OP (MV) itself was dismissed for default and the petitioner has filed I.A.No.4188 of 2019 seeking restoration of the O.P.(MV) No.1515/2010.

¶20

Sri.Sheji P.Abraham learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of repeated postings the Interlocutory Application for restoration was not being taken up by the Tribunal. This Court had called for a report from the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal has pointed out the fact that altogether 2569 cases are pending before the Tribunal, as OP (MV)'s and the Civil cases.

¶21

Taking into consideration the fact that the Original Petition in the year 2010, it is directed that I.A.No.4188 of 2019 filed by the petitioner, be taken up for consideration either on 27.06.2019, the next posting date as is evident from certified copy of this proceedings handed over by the

¶22

OP (MAC).No.3 of 2019

¶23

¶24

learned counsel or on any day to which the case is adjourned , which shall preferably be within a period of one month from today.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. Dhanbai Kanji Gandhvi (2011(1 ) KLT 617), in support of this contention that there is no prohibition against the claimant praying for compensation as per the structured formula after having filed a claim petition under Section 166. The only bar is from the claimant proceeding with a petition filed under 166 after getting compensation under Section 163 (A).

¶26

In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, petitioner can approach the Tribunal to reconsider its decision dismissing the application for conversion and the Tribunal may pass appropriate orders thereof.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

mpm

OP (MAC).No.3 of 2019

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 17.11.2018 IN I.A.NO.8399/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCINDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,TRICHUR. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 22.01.2019 IN O.P. (M.V) NO.1515/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCINDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,TRICHUR.

¶36

// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

Davis v. Ratheesh.P.v.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Davis v. Ratheesh.P.v.

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

The Regional Manager Vs State of Kerala

Aboobacker.M.a Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash, Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Syam Vs State of Kerala

Vinodkumar K.M Vs the Chairman and Managing Director

A.J.Varghese Vs State of Kerala