N.Basheer vs Managing Partner on 21 November, 2019

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

N.Basheer vs Managing Partner on 21 November, 2019

Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

  THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1941

                       OP (MAC).No.62 OF 2014(O)

  AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP(MV) 865/2004 DATED 30-09-2013 OF MOTOR
                ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD


PETITIONER/S:

                N.BASHEER, AGED 45 YEARS,
                S/O. SYED MOHAMMED, NARIYAMBADAM HOUSE, KONIKIZHI,
                PULAPATTA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678632
                (R.C. OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE KA-01-D-8788.)

                BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.KARTHIK TRANSPORTS,
                13/20, K.S.V. NILAYA BUILDINGS, KALASIPALAYAM,
                NEW EXTENSION, BANGLORE-560001 (KARNATAKA STATE).

      2         S. BALU,
                AGED 41 YEARS,
                S/O. CHADAYAPPAN, BANGALIPURAM, CHENNAMANGALAM,
                NAMAKKAL-637001 (TAMIL NADU).

      3         THE BRANCH MANAGER
                THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., RAM COMPLEX,
                29 PARAMATHI ROAD, NAMAKKAL-637001 (TAMIL NADU),
                (INSURER OF ASHOK LEYLAND LPG TANKER KA-01-D-8788),
                VALIDITY 23-3-2003 TO 22-3-2004).

                R1 BY ADV. ADV.ZIYAD RAHMANBO
                R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
                R3 BY ADV. ADV.ZIYAD RAHMAN(B/O)

     THIS OP (MAC) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.11.2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP (MAC).No.62 OF 2014(O)
                                     2


                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the claimant. His application was dismissed for default on 29.05.2010 as the petitioner failed to furnish correct address of the respondent. Thereafter, application for restoration was filed. That was dismissed.

2. As seen from the proceedings, this case depicts negligence and latches on the part of the counsel in prosecuting the case before the Tribunal. But that should not result in denial of compensation which otherwise claimant would be entitled in accordance with law.

Taking note of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside and the claim petition has to be restored. However in the event compensation is being awarded, the petitioner will not be entitled for interest from the date of original petition till next appearance. The parties are directed to appear on 8.1.2020 before the Tribunal.

Accordingly, this original petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

                                          A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
rkj                                                JUDGE
 OP (MAC).No.62 OF 2014(O)
                               3




                            APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           A TRUE COPY OF THE OP(MV) 865/2004
                     DATED 5-10-2004.

EXHIBIT P2           A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED UNDER

ORDER IX RULES 9 DATED 16-6-2010 ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-9-2013.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court