IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 25521 OF 2022
PETITIONER/:
VASANTHI.K.R
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O LATE RADHAKRISHANAN.K.A, KOCHUKULAM HOUSE,
NANDHIPULAM.P.O., THRISSUR. , PIN - 680312
BY ADV RAJESH CHAKYAT
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN -
695001
2 THE INSURANCE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
INSURANCE DIRECTORATE,
TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHAKADU, THAIKKAD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. , PIN - 695014
3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VARANTHARAPPILLY POLICE STATION,
VARANTHARAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. , PIN - 680303
G.P. SRI.JIMMY GEORGE.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 25521 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed by the widow of Late Radhakrishnan. K.A who was the member in Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme (Ext.P2) of the 1 st respondent. According to the petitioner, while her husband was riding his handicapped scooter, he lost control of the vehicle and the vehicle hit on a wall and he died due to the injuries sustained in the said accident.
2. The petitioner preferred a claim as per Ext.P2 Scheme claiming compensation before the 2nd respondent. However, the same was rejected by Ext.P1 stating that the husband of the petitioner was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. She preferred Ext.P3 appeal against Ext.P1 before the 1st respondent as per Clause 12(a) of Ext.P2 Scheme along with an application to condone the delay. WP(C) NO. 25521 OF 2022 3 The limited prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of Ext.P3.
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that the appeal has to be preferred within a period of 60 days as per clause 12 (a) of Ext.P2 Scheme and Ext.P2 does not provide any provision to condone delay in filing this appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P2 provides for power to the 1 st respondent to entertain Ext.P3 appeal after condoning the delay.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made at the Bar, there will be a direction to the 1 st respondent to take up Ext.P3 appeal for consideration along with the application to condone delay and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months, after hearing the petitioner either physically or on virtual mode. I make it clear that that I have not considered the merits of Ext.P3 or expressed any opinion with WP(C) NO. 25521 OF 2022 4 regard to the power of the 1 st respondent to condone the delay.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE al/-
WP(C) NO. 25521 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25521/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2017 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE CLAIM Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF GROUP PERSONAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE SCHEME Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.07.2022 PREFERRED BY PETITIONER EXCEPT DOCUMENTS