Sindhu vs Pankajarajan on 21 May, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 8304 of 2009(G)


1. SINDHU, AGED 32,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. PANKAJARAJAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :21/05/2009

 O R D E R
                        V.GIRI, J
                      -------------------
                   W.P.(C).8304/2009
                      --------------------
        Dated this the 21st day of May, 2009

                      JUDGMENT

Petitioner’s husband allegedly met with a serious

accident. According to the petitioner, her husband is

lying in a comatose state and therefore, unable to

move about. She therefore, filed a petition under the

Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation on behalf

of her husband describing herself as next friend. The

learned Tribunal conducted a preliminary enquiry, but

has not so far directed the Original Petition to be

numbered. This Court called for a report from the

MACT, Thiruvananthapuram and by communication

dated 8.4.2009, it has been reported that the

medical certificate issued from the Ananthapuri

Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, produced by the

petitioner did not reveal the condition of the injured;

nor have records been produced to demonstrate the

relationship between the petitioner and the injured.

W.P.(C).8304/2009
2

2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned Government Pleader and having perused

the averments in the writ petition, I am of the view

that it will be appropriate that the Tribunal directs

numbering of the petition. Thereafter, petitioner

could be called upon to produce all the materials to

convince the Tribunal that the injured is disabled to

the extent to which he is unable to prosecute the

proceedings himself and requires the help of a next

friend. Tribunal can also call upon the petitioner to

produce sufficient evidence to show that she is

competent to represent the injured. Obviously an

enquiry would be necessary in this case and

numbering of the petition need not be deferred till

then.

3. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of

directing the MACT, Thiruvananthapuram, to direct

the numbering of Ext.P1 petition presented before it

W.P.(C).8304/2009
3

and then proceed further in accordance with law.

Copy of the judgment along with the copy of the writ

petition shall be placed by the petitioner on record

before the MACT for its perusal.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

V.GIRI,
Judge

mrcs