Sudhakar vs Muhammed Musthafa on 26 October, 2019

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sudhakar vs Muhammed Musthafa on 26 October, 2019

Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

 SATURDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 4TH KARTHIKA,
                          1941

                  OP (MAC).No.57 OF 2017(O)

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 306/2015 OF MOTOR
          ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE


PETITIONER:

              SUDHAKAR, AGED 43 YEARS,RESIDING AT RAJAGOUNDA
              PALAYM,SURIYAMPALAYAM P.O., THIRUCHANCODE
              TK,NAMAKKAL, TAMILNADU.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.NIRMAL. S
              SMT.VEENA HARI

RESPONDENTS:

     1        MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, RESIDING AT SALEENA
              MANZIL,PUNCHAKUZHINILAM, KOLANGARAPADAMFEROKE
              COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE 673 001.

     2        SELVAM A, S/O.ALAKU,RESIDING AT PARVATHI ILLAM
              H.NO.4/117SOUTH STREET, THIRUPPATHUR
              P.O.,SIVAGANGA, TAMIL NADU 680 561.

     3        NATIONAL INSURANC CO LTD 74 A
              PARAMATHY ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU 637 001.


     THIS  OP  (MAC) HAVING BEEN  FINALLY HEARD  ON
26.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP (MAC).No.57 OF 2017(O)

                                ..2..




                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner was set ex-parte in the proceedings of the claim petition in OP(MV)No.306/2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The Tribunal ordered pay and recovery. Petitioner has a case that petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and there was a valid insurance and the driver had a valid license.

2. The Tribunal dismissed the application for setting aside the award, on the ground that, there was no sufficient cause for non appearance from the part of petitioner. Petitioner has a case of non service of notice. It is to be noted that the pay and recovery was ordered mainly on the ground that there was no valid license to the driver. Though, no notice was served on the driver, a paper publication was taken out in a Malayalam Daily. The driver appears to be residing in Tamil Nadu.

3. In such circumstance, in the interest of justice, an OP (MAC).No.57 OF 2017(O) ..3..

opportunity should be given to the petitioner to prove insurance as well as the possession of valid license by the driver. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The claim petition is restored. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 25.11.2019. The Tribunal shall allow the petitioner to produce evidence, which substantiate the petitioner's contention. The claim petition shall be disposed within a further period of two months.

The OP(MAC) is disposed as above.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE PR OP (MAC).No.57 OF 2017(O) ..4..

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN OP(MV)306/2015 DT.19/3/2016 BEFORE THE PRL.MACT, KOZHIKODE EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING I.A 146/2017 IN OP(MV) 306/2015 DT. 16/1/2017 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A 147/2017 IN OP(MV) 306/2015 DT. 16/1/2017 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A 147/2017 IN OP(MV)306/2015 DATED 8/2/2017 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 2/1/2017

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court