High Court Kerala High Court

The United India Insurance … vs Bijoy Varghese on 1 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
The United India Insurance … vs Bijoy Varghese on 1 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Tr.P(C).No. 325 of 2009()


1. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. BIJOY VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SATHEESH, S/O.VASU, PULIKKATHARA

3. NYJU JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, NELLOOR HOUSE,

4. SURESH, S/O.GEORGE, PADINJAREMALAYIL

5. JOSEPH, S/O.MATHAI, CHERU PARAMBIL

6. SATHEESH, S/O.VASU, PULIKKATHARA

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJESH THOMAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.V.ELIAS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :01/07/2010

 O R D E R
                  THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.

                 ----------------------------------------

                      Tr.P.C.No.325 of 2009

                  ---------------------------------------

                Dated this 01st day of July, 2010

                               ORDER

Respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 are served but, there is no

response. Respondent No.4 has appeared through counsel. So far

as respondent No.3 is concerned, as per order dated 16-11-2009 of

this court, notice was served on his counsel which amounts to

sufficient service as provided under Rule 59 of the Kerala High

Court Rules. As such, service on counsel for respondent No.3 is

sufficient.

2. Prayer in this petition is to consolidate two claim

petitions pending in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at

Muvattupuzha and Thodupuzha. According to the petitioner, both

the claim petitions arise out of same accident and involved

collision of two vehicles. It is contended that since the issue

regarding negligence arises in both the cases it is necessary that

these cases are tried and disposed of by the same court to avoid

divergent findings as to cause of accident and liability for payment

of compensation. Respondent No.1 has filed O.P.No.378 of 2007 in

the MACT at Muvattupuzha while respondent No.4 has filed

O.P.No.697 of 2006 at MACT at Thodupuzha. Learned counsel

states that injured has filed separate claim petitions which are

Tr.P.C.No.325 of 2009
: 2 :

pending in the MACT, Muvattupuzha. In the above circumstance,

it is only just and proper that case pending in MACT, Thodupuzha

is also brought to the MACT, Muvattupuzha.

Resultantly this petitions is allowed and O.P.(M.V)No.697 of

2006 pending in the MACT, Thodupuzha is withdrawn from that

court and transferred to the MACT, Muvattupuzha. The

transferor court shall transmit records of the case to the

transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides

as to the date of appearance in the transferee court.

(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)

Sbna/-