Chandran vs Surendran and Others

P.N. Ravindran, J.—The Petitioner is the first claimant in O.P(MV) No. 228 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. In the said claim petition filed u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Petitioner, his wife and their daughter-in-law have claimed payment of the sum of Rs. 6 lakhs as compensation for the death of the son of the Petitioner herein. After the trial of the claim petition was over, the Petitioner filed I.A. No. 5416 of 2010 to amend the claim petition to describe it as one filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act along with I.A. No. 5417 of 2010 to reopen the claim petition for the purpose of considering I.A. No. 5416 of 2010. By order passed on 30th December, 2010 the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed I.A. No. 5417 of 2010 on the ground that the petition is filed after the trial was over. Consequently by Ext.P4 order passed on the very same day I.A. No. 5416 of 2010, the application for amendment, was also dismissed. Hence this writ petition. O.P(MAC). No. 291 of 2011

Though the Respondents have been served they have not entered appearance. I heard Sri.V.A. Johnson Varikkappillil, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. During the course of arguments the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner brought to my notice that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has by order passed on I.A. No. 125 of 2011 filed by the Petitioners in the claim petition reopened the case and that in that view of the matter the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to consider I.A. No. 5416 of 2010 on the merits. The registry has also submitted a report to the above effect. In such circumstances as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has already reopened the case I am of the opinion that the Tribunal should consider I.A. No. 5416 of 2010 on the merits and pass appropriate orders thereon.

I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad to consider I.A. No. 5416 of 2010 and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously and in any event within one month from today. The Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the claim petition O.P(MAC). No. 291 of 2011expeditiously thereafter. It will be open to the Petitioner and the parties who have entered appearance to adduce further evidence in support of their rival contentions.