P.Madhava Menon vs Sukumaran on 31 July, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 24041 of 2006(K)


1. P.MADHAVA MENON, AGED 61, S/O. POTTAYIL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUKUMARAN, S/O. RAMAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SURENDRAN, S/O. NARAYANAN,

3. M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.B.PRAJITH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :31/07/2007

 O R D E R
                        PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
                          -------------------------------
                       W.P.(C) No. 24041 OF 2006
                        -----------------------------------
                   Dated this the 31st day of July, 2007

                                 JUDGMENT

Exts.P1 and P2 orders under which the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal refused to condone the delay of 280 days caused in the matter

of filing the application to set aside ex-parte award and dismissed the

application to set aside the ex-parte award are under challenge in this

Writ Petition under Article 227. Even though notice was served on the

3rd respondent, Insurance Company, there is no appearance for that

Company before this Court.

2. Heard Sri.G.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Sri.M.B.Prajith, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. It is conceded

that the 1st respondent applicant before the MACT has already received

the award money. But under the award the Insurance Company is given

the right to recover the amounts from the petitioner who is found to be

the owner of the vehicle in question. Sri.G.Sreekumar would submit

that the document of hire purchase was produced before the MACT and

that document will clearly show that the transaction between the

petitioner and the other parties was only one of hire purchase. A copy

of the hire purchase agreement was placed before me by

Sri.G.Sreekumar and I have gone through the same. Having gone

WPC No. 24041 of 2006
2

through the hire purchase agreement, I am of the view that the case of

the petitioner that the petitioner was not the real owner of the vehicle

merits consideration.

Under these circumstances, I set aside Exts.P1 and P2,

However, the same is being done only on condition that the petitioner

pays a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee. I

would have been inclined to direct payment of cost to the Insurance

Company also but I am not doing so, since they have not chosen to

enter appearance in this court. Exts.P1 and P2 will stand set aside and

I.A. Nos.2950 and 2949 of 2004 in OP (MV) No.287 of 2000 will stand

allowed on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the

High Court Legal Services Committee within three weeks of receiving

copy of this judgment. Once it is seen that the payment is made as

directed above, the MACT will repost MV(OP) for consideration and

dispose of the same on merits, i.e., in the light of the contentions raised

by the petitioner. The MACT will ensure that the fresh award to be

passed does not cause any prejudice to the 1st respondent in the MACT.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt

WPC No. 24041 of 2006
3