IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25409 of 2009(U)
1. M.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 52 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REMCY, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.SHAJI,
... Respondent
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
3. YOUSAF, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN,
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.ELDHO PAUL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :29/09/2009
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.25409 OF 2009
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is one of the respondents in O.P.(MV)
Nos.537/2004 and 378/2004 before the M.A.C.T, Muvattupuzha.
The Tribunal disposed of those O.Ps by a common award in so
far as both O.Ps arose out of the same accident. In O.P.(MV)
No.537/04, the amount awarded was more than Rs.10,000/-,
where as the amount awarded in O.P.(MV) No.378/04 was less
than Rs.10,000/-. With the intention of filing an appeal against
the award in O.P.(MV) No.537/04, the petitioner had deposited
Rs.25,000/- before the Tribunal. But, by mistake, the deposit
was made in O.P.(MV) No.378/04 and in the receipt issued by
the Tribunal, O.P.(MV) No.378/04 was mentioned. Petitioner
filed a memo requesting the Tribunal to correct the case number
in the receipt issued by the Tribunal. According to the
petitioner, the Tribunal is not passing any orders in the memo.
It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this
writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
“a) issue a direction to the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal Muvattupuzha to correct theW.P.(C) NO.25409 OF 2009 2
case in Ext.P2 receipt as OP(MV) No.537 of
2004 instead of OP(MV) No.378/2004.
b) To pass such other orders which are
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
2. In view of the allegations in the writ petition I called
for a report from the Tribunal. The Tribunal filed the following
report.
“A common award was passed in O.P.
(MV)371/04, 373/04, 374/04, 375/04, 376/04,
378/04, 537/04, 1352/04 and 1353/04 on
3.12.2007. A sum of Rs.25,000/- has been
deposited by the 1st respondent,
Sri.M.K.Ramakrishnan, as per memo dated
7.4.09 in O.P.(MV) 378/04. Receipt for the
amount was issued as per RCD No.5/09-10
dated 7.4.9. The amount was deposited in
Fixed Deposit for a period of 2 years in North
Malabar Gramin Bank, Muvattupuzha in the
name of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Muvattupuzha. On 24.6.09, the respondent
Sri.M.K.Ramakrishnan filed a memo without
the original receipt issued by this Tribunal,
stating that the amount deposited in O.P.(MV)
378/04 may be treated as the statutory
deposit in O.P.(MV) 537/04 and pass orders
accordingly. But the section clerk did not put
up the said memo before me and not taken the
orders. According to the section clerk on
verification of the memo, he intimated the
pleader’s clerk to file a verified petition with
affidavit along with the receipt of C.R.61. But
the counsel for the respondent failed to do so
and to file a proper petition with the receipt
previously issued to him in the other O.P.(MV)
378/04 and to correct the deposit. Due to the
oversight of the section clerk the memo was
not submitted for orders. The copy of
explanation put in by the concerned clerk also
appended herewith. Even now, if theW.P.(C) NO.25409 OF 2009 3
petitioner in the O.P.(MV)537/04 file a proper
petition along with C.R.61 receipt issued to
him, the said correction can be made. But till
this date the petitioner has not returned the
receipt for correcting the same. Hence in the
circumstance it is humbly prayed that this
report may be considered with a lenient view
and necessary direction may be issued.”
3. In view of the same, this writ petition is disposed of
recording the above report of the Tribunal and directing the
petitioner to approach the Tribunal with a proper petition along
with the original receipt, as stated in the report.
(S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE)
spc