Kerala High Court
K.Ahammed vs B.D.Tharu on 3 March, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2017/14TH ASHADHA, 1939
OP (MAC).No. 1114 of 2011 (O)
------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NOS. 4373/2009 AND 850/2011 OPMV 1166/2004 of
M.A.C.T., THALASSERY DATED 3.3.2011
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
------------------------
K.AHAMMED,S/O.SOOPY,KUNNEMMAL HOUSE,
PO THAROPOYIL,VIA-PONNERI,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,,
REP.RESETED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
A.THAJUDHEEN,, S/O.ALIYARKUTTY,AGED 56 YEARS,
RESHEEDA MANZIL,, THEKKEPURAM,PADANNA PO,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. B.D.THARU,121 B,KASBA PATH,OPP.KUMBHAR
WEDA, PUNE PO, MAHARASHTRA ,PIN 411 009.
2. DATHA SIVAJI,S/O.SIVATHINIKAM,
MOHATAYA VILLAGE,CHAKOOR PO,
MAHARASHTRA, STATE,PIN 411 100.
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD..
PUNE PO,, PIN 411 009.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR
THIS OP (MAC) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-07-2017, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (MAC).No. 1114 of 2011 (O)
------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL PETITION IN O.P.(MV)NO.1166/2004 ON THE
FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OP(MV) 1166/2004 FILED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 1.12.2010 IN WRIT PETITION (C)
NO.33258/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 3.3.2011 IN I.A.4373/2006 AND 805/2011
IN I.A.806/2011 IN OP(MV)NO.1166/2004 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 3.3.2011 IN I.A.4373/2009 AND 805/2011
OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION I.A.1292/2011 IN OP(MV) 1166/2004
DATED 14.3.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MACT,
THALASSERY
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
dlk
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
----------------------------
O.P.(MAC) No.1114 of 2011
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of July, 2017
JUDGMENT
Petitioner filed Ext.P1 application seeking compensation for the loss sustained to the motor car apparently in a motor accident. The application is pending consideration, while so, I.A.Nos.4373/2009, I.A.805/2011 and 806/2011 were filed obviously under Order 16 Rule 1 of C.P.C etc. etc. to receive two separate witness list filed along with the petition, seeking direction to the Insurance Surveyor to be present before the Tribunal with the report and accept witness list to examine two witnesses. The said IAs were dismissed as per Exts.P4 and P5 order on merits holding that the petitions are not liable to be allowed since it was found that the same was intended only to prolong and protract the matter unnecessarily. While the proceedings with respect to the IAs have concluded so, petitioner again submitted Ext.P6 application seeking the very same relief and seeks direction in the original petition to consider the same.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the third respondent and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
O.P.(MAC) No.1114 of 2011 2
3. The subject matter of the issue revolves around Exts. P4 and P5 orders passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal. A finality is attained to the said orders in the interlocutory applications after hearing the respective parties, by which the proceedings are concluded, and thereby, filing of the second application is hit by the principles to resjudicata, and therefore, Ext.P6 application submitted by the petitioner seeking the very same relief cannot be sustained under law, being hit by resjudicata. Therefore, I dismiss this original petition since the relief sought for by the petitioner to dispose of Ext.P6 is not sustainable under law. However, if the petitioner is any manner aggrieved by Ext.P4 and P5 orders consequent to non- consideration of any documents while passing Exts.P4 and P5 order it is for the petitioner to seek review in the order, if advised so.
Leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to do so, this original petition is closed. However, if any application is filed seeking to condone the delay the pendency of the matter before this Court shall be taken note of by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and consider the same, in accordance with law. I also O.P.(MAC) No.1114 of 2011 3 make it clear that the observations and directions made above shall bot be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter and the Tribunal will be free and at liberty to take any decision.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE dlk/5/7/