Mathew P.K vs Rajendran V.M
2021 Latest Caselaw 4702 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

                                    &

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

     TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942

                       Tr.Appeal(C).No.1 OF 2021


APPELLANT/S:

                MATHEW P.K.
                AGED 68 YEARS
                S/O. KURIAN, PUTHETTU HOUSE, DOOR NO.VIII/57,
                KUDAYATHOOR , KANJAR P.O., THODUPUZHA -684592.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.MATHEW SKARIA
                SRI.C.M.TOMY

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         RAJENDRAN V.M.
                AGED 47 YEARS
                H/O. DECEASED MINIMOL, VELLISSERIL, ARAKKULAM,
                MOOLAMATTOM-685591.

      2         ABIJITH,
                AGED 23 YEARS
                S/O. DECEASED MINIMOL, VELLISSERIL, ARAKKULAM,
                MOOLAMATTOM-685591.

      3         ASHMA RAJENDRAN,
                AGED 20 YEARS
                D/O. DECEASED MINIMOL, VELLISSERIL, ARAKKULAM,
                MOOLAMATTOM-685591.

      4         NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
                REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH PALA, PALA-
                686575.


     THIS TRANSFER APPEAL(CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Tr.Appeal(C).No.1 OF 2021                2




                  A.HARIPRASAD & P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JJ
                           --------------------------------
                           Tr. Appeal No. 1 of 2021
                            -------------------------------
                    Dated this the 9th day of February, 2021


                                      JUDGMENT

A.Hariprasad, J.

Heard the learned counsel for appellant and contesting

respondents. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company is also

heard.

2. Aggrieved by an order passed by a learned single Judge

transferring OP(MV) No. 254/2017 from MACT, Pala to MACT,

Thodupuzha, this appeal has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant (1 st respondent) relying

on Neha Arun Jugadar and anr. v. Kumari Palak Diwan Ji [2011

(2) KHC 954] contended that the order of transfer is not in conformity

with the ratio in the decision since both parties admit that MACT, Pala

has no jurisdiction to try the case and therefore, the learned single

Judge should have dismissed the application. On going through the

short decision, we find that the Apex Court has not considered the

relevant statutory provisions. Instead, it ostensibly exercised its

plenary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances in this case, we

find that the ratio in the above decision is not applicable. We find no

reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned single Judge

and hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.HARIPRASAD JUDGE

sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS