IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2150 of 2008(E)
1. MINI VARGHESE, AGED 33 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RAJENDRA PRAHIAD KADAM,
... Respondent
2. SUNIL SANKAR GADS, S/O. SANKAR,
3. BRANCH MANAGER,
4. A.R.SANTHOSH KUMAR,
5. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.ELIAS
For Respondent :SRI.KKM.SHERIF
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :18/02/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.2150 of 2008
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 18th day of February, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Exts.P3 and P4 orders passed by the MACT, Muvattupuzha in
I.A.Nos.4519/2007 and 4529/2007 in OP No.1530/2003 are under
challenge in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner is the claimant in the aforesaid claim
petition. Following an accident that resulted in the death of her
husband, she instituted the proceedings, in which she filed Ext.P1
for accepting additional witness schedule, and Ext.P2 for issuing
summons to the additional witnesses. It was these two I.As that
were rejected by the Tribunal as per Exts.P3 & P4. In Ext.P3, on the
ground that the application filed for accepting witness schedule was
a belated one, the Tribunal dismissed the same. Consequently, the
application for issuing summons to the additional witnesses also was
rejected by Ext.P4.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it
was on account of the delay in collecting details about the additional
witnesses that the delay in filing the applications arose. It is stated
WP(C) No.2150/2008
-2-
that there was no intention at all to protract the proceedings
contrary to what has been found by the Tribunal.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the insurance
companies also. They are supporting the order and argued that the
applications were belated and were for protracting the proceedings.
5. On the materials available, I am not in a position to say
that the intention of the petitioner was to protract the proceedings.
It should be remembered that she is the claimant, in a case, for
damages following the death of her husband and she should have
no reason for protracting such a proceeding. True, there has been
delay in making application. But, even if a slight delay has occurred,
that should not in all cases, result in an order shutting out evidence
that a litigant feels it necessary to let in. In my view, the petitions
ought to have been allowed. Therefore, I am not prepared to
sustain Exts.P3 & P4 and these orders will stand set aside.
6. The Tribunal shall pass orders allowing Exts.P1 & P2 and
pass orders, on production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg