IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 33317 of 2007(N)
1. SARAMMA P.V. @ LISSY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SATHYAN M.B.,
... Respondent
2. O.V. VARKEY, S/O. VARGHESE,
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAMADAS
For Respondent :SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :15/01/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 33317 OF 2007
---------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with a prayer to set aside Exts. P3
& P4. Ext.P3 is a application for substituted services. The court
below dismissed the same on the ground that the claimant did not
take steps to serve notice on 1st respondent in the correct address,
in spite of directions. Ext.P4 application is to review the order
dismissing the application, which also met with the very same fate.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
Insurance Company. The 1st respondent is the person in whose
name the policy had been issued by the company. It is submitted
that during the currency of the policy the 1st respondent has
transferred the vehicle to the 2nd respondent and therefore the 2nd
respondent has become the owner of the vehicle. He was the
person who was riding the vehicle and the claimant was only a pillion
rider. Insurance Company would contend regarding the liability of
the pillion rider, as per the present decision of the Apex court,. It is
true that the intention of the legislature is to give personal notice to
the parties, as far as possible, so that they can come and help the
WPC NO 33317/07 2
court or atleast contest the case. The claimant is totally a stranger
and he cannot be asked to move from pillar to post to collect the
address, for the reason that he may not be able to do so. The
claimant will be the last person who will be interested in protracting
the case. The claimant has shown the address of the 1st
respondent, which is available in the policy of insurance.
Unfortunately, it appears the 1st respondent could not be reached at,
in that address. Even if a direction is given to give the correct
address, it may not be possible for the claimant to know about it.
Therefore, in the larger interest and as the provisions under the
Motor Vehicles Act provides to award compensation is a beneficial
legislation, technicalities shall be side lined to certain extent but
without sacrificing the legal formalities that have to be complied with.
Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances
of the case, I allow the application for substituted services and direct
the court below to name the paper in which the publication is to be
done, with a date of hearing.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps
WPC NO 33317/07 3