Disposed

Ajith.P. Raju v. Nidhin Jose

Kerala HC8 Mar 2023OP (MAC)/25/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court entertained petition seeking direction to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to consider applications seeking to set aside ex-parte award and condone delay. Petitioner had furnished security. Court directed Tribunal to decide all matters expediently.

What did the court decide?

Order directed the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala to consider the petitioner's applications (Exts. P5 and P6) and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

Ajith.P. Raju Vs Nidhin Jose — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶2

OP (MAC) NO. 25 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOPMV 173/2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PALA

¶3

PETITIONER/S:

¶4

AJITH.P.RAJU
AGED55YEARS
S/ORAJU,
MANAGINGPARTNER,PUKUDIYILBUILDINGS,
VAKATHANAM.P.O,UNNAMATTOM,CHANGANASSERY,
PIN-686538
BYADVS.
S.NIDHEESH
KUNJAPPEASOWRAINGE

¶5

RESPONDENT/S:

¶6

1NIDHINJOSE
S/OJOSEPLAMATTOM,
PLAMATTATHILHOUSE,MUTHOLI.P.O,MEENACHIL,
KOTTAYAM,PIN-686597

¶7

2BIJU.P.ABRAHAM
S/OABRAHAM,PARAKULATHUHOUSE,
PARAKULAMKURISHUKAVALA,KUZHIMATTOM.P.O,
KOTTAYAM,PIN-686533

¶8

3 JOSHI.A. CHEMBARATHI S/O AUGUSTINE, CHEMBARATHINKAL HOUSE MUTHALAKODAM.P.O, THODUPUZHA, PIN - 686605

¶9

4 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY KOTTAYAM BRANCH, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001

¶10

5 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THODUPZUHA BRANCH, REP. BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001

¶11

SRILALKJOSEPHSC
SRIGEORGEACHERIANSC

¶12

THISOP(MAC)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
08.03.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶13

OP(MAC)NO.25OF2023

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner herein is the 3rd respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No. 173/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. Owing to the failure of the petitioner to appear before the Court and contest the proceedings, he was set Ex-parte and Ext. P1 award was passed. The petitioner asserts that later, a review petition was preferred by the Insurance Company, which led to the passing of the revised Award. The Tribunal, finding that the vehicle was not having a valid Fitness Certificate, directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount and to later recover the same from the petitioner. The petitioner states that they have filed an application to set aside the Ex-parte award and also to condone the delay in filing the application, as is evident from Exts. P5 and P6, which were produced before this Court. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if directions are issued to the Tribunal to consider the application and take a decision in an expeditious manner.

¶17

This Court, by an order dated 03.02.2023, had ordered that if the petitioner furnished security to the satisfaction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, the requisition made by the Tribunal to initiate revenue recovery against the petitioner shall be withdrawn.

¶18

Sri. Nidheesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that in terms of the directions issued, Security was furnished.

¶19

OP(MAC)NO.25OF2023

¶20

¶21

Heard, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

¶22

respondent, who vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶23

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the submissions made across the bar, this Original Petition is disposed of directing the learned Tribunal to consider Exts. P5 and P6 and pass appropriate orders, with notice to all concerned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

avs

¶28

OP(MAC)NO.25OF2023

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX OF OP (MAC) 25/2023

¶31

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶32

`Exhibit`	`p1` `TRUE COPY` `FILED BEF` `TRIBUNAL,`	`OF THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.)NO. 173/16` `ORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS` `PALA DATED 21.1.2019.`
`Exhibit`	`p2` `TRUE COPY` `173/16 FI` `TRIBUNAL,`	`OF THE REVISED AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.)NO.` `LED BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS` `PALA DATED 11.12.2019`
`Exhibit`	`p3` `TRUE COPY` `24.9.2022`	`OF THE ORDER DEMAND NOTICE DATED`
`Exhibit`	`p4` `TRUE COPY`	`OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 26.9.2022`
`Exhibit`	`p5` `TRUE COPY` `AWARD IN` `CLAIMS TR`	`OF THE PETITION TO SET ASIDE EX-PARTE` `O.P.(M.V.)173/16 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT` `IBUNAL, PALA DATED 31.10.2022`
`Exhibit`	`p6` `TRUE COPY` `O.P.(M.V.` `TRIBUNAL,`	`OF THE PETITION TO CONDONE DELAY IN` `)173/16 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS` `PALA DATED 31.10.2022.`
`Exhibit`	`p7` `TRUE COPY` `REGISTER`	`OF THE FORM NO. 24 OF MOTOR VEHICLES` `SRTO, CHANGANASSERY`

Ajith.P. Raju v. Nidhin Jose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajith.P. Raju v. Nidhin Jose

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

Varghese a, Vs Thiruvananthapuram District Committee of Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board

M.Ganesan Vs the Chief Inspector of Plantation

Murugan S. Vs Thiruvananthapuram District Committee of Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board

Dipak Gogoi Vs District Labour Officer

Biju. K.B Vs the District Labour Officer (General)

Padmavathy P Komerath Vs Union of India