High CourtsSingle Bench(2022) 11 KL CK 0283

Rashid P vs Yesoda

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 24 November 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Petition (MAC) No. 133 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 385 words

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

1.

The above O.P.(MAC) is filed with the following prayers:

“(a) To direct the Hon'ble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam to take up Ext P-2 interlocutory application (I.A No 5/2022 in O.P (M.V) No 223/2020) and pass orders on the same within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

(b) to grant such other reliefs prayed for from time to time including cost of these proceedings.”[SIC]

2.

The  petitioners  herein  are  1st    and  2nd respondents in O.P (M.V) No.223/2020 pending on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam. The original petition was filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein seeking compensation. It is the case of the petitioners that, during the time of hearing, the Insurance Company came up with an argument that there was no pillion rider who was accompanying the first petitioner who is only having a valid learners licence and as a person who is having valid licence is not accompanied at the time of accident, the policy condition is violated and the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is the case of the petitioners that, the Insurance Company came up with such a contention only belatedly and the petitioners filed an application seeking permission to reopen the evidence for adducing the evidence to show that pillion rider who was having valid driving licence was present at the time of accident. It is the case of the petitioners that, I.A.No.5/2022 is filed for that purpose. It is submitted that the Tribunal without considering the same, going to pass an award. Hence this original petition is filed.

3.

Heard counsel appearing for the petitioners. The way in which this Original Petition is going to dispose of, no notice necessary to the respondents. If the respondents are aggrieved, they are free to file a Review Petition before this Court.

4.

The limited prayer in this original petition is for a direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam to consider I.A.No.5/2022 before passing final orders in OP(MV)No.223/2020. I think that prayer can be allowed.

Therefore, this Original Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

i) There will be a direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam to dispose of I.A.No.5/2022, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before passing final orders in OP(MV)No.223/2020.