Kerala High Court
N.Lawrence vs Ajikumar on 2 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943
OP (MAC) NO. 50 OF 2021
(TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER IN IA.NO.01 OF 2020 IN OP(MV) N0.1553
OF 2017 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 30.12.2020)
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION/APPLICANT IN THE ORIGINAL CLAIM APPLICATION:
N.LAWRENCE
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. NELSON, SAINT ANTONY'S BHAVAN, MYLODE,
MALAYINKEEZHU P.O, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, PIN-695 571
BY ADV RINU. S. ASWAN
RESPONDENTS/COUNTER-PETITIONERS IN THE INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION/RESPONDENTS IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION:
1 AJIKUMAR
AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O. SADASIVAN, SARASWATHI SADANAM,
VITTIYAM ROAD, PEYAD P.O, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT,
PIN-695 573
2 SANGEETH S.R,
AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O. SAJIKUMAR, S.K. BHAVAN, VITTIYAM
ROAD, PEYAD P.O, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, PIN-695 573
3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, HAVING OFFICE AT CLAIMS
HUB, GOVT. PRESS ROAD, G.P.O, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001
SC ,SRI.LAL K JOSEPH
THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.07.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (MAC) NO. 50 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein is the claimant in OP(MV)1553 of
2017 on the files of the MACT, Thiruvananthapuram. Pending
the proceedings the petitioner filed IA No.1/2020 for referring
the injured to the District Medical Board. It seems that an
objection was not filed. The MACT, Thiruvananthapuram by
Ext.P4 order allowed the application, however holding that no
original medical records were produced till then. No reason
was attributed for the delay and consequently he will not be
entitled for interest from the date of order till the disposal of
OP(MV) in case any award was passed.
2. The above portion of the order by which the court
directed that the petitioner will not be entitled to interest
from that day onwards till the date of disposal is under
challenge in this proceedings.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the Insurance Company, who supported
the order of the MACT, Thiruvananthapuram.
4. It seems that the MACT, Thiruvananthapuram had
OP (MAC) NO. 50 OF 2021
justified the above part of the order on the ground that no
reason was given for the non production of the records and
also the delay in filing the above application. However, the
order does not indicate that the case was ripe for evidence
and for the mere reason of delay in filing the application, the
case got delayed. Noramally, whether to impose conditions or
not at the time of disposal of an application is within the
domain of the discretion of the courts and in such matters,
normally the courts will be slow in interfering. However, in
this case, I feel that in the absence of any material to show
that the petitioner had purposefully delayed the proceedings
and that had affected the disposal of the case, I am inclined
to interfere and to delete the direction given by the MACT,
Thiruvananthapuram that the petitioner will not be entitled to
interest from the date of order till the date of disposal.
Accordingly that part of the order will stand quashed and the
IA will stand allowed.
OP(MAC) is disposed of.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE
R.AV
OP (MAC) NO. 50 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF OP (MAC) 50/2021
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER IN I.A. NO.
01 OF 2020 IN O.P. (MV) NO. 1553 OF 2017 ON
THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE M.A.C.T,
TRIVANDRUM DATED 30.12.2020.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL PETITION ON THE
FILES OF LD. M.A.C.T , TRIVANDRUM DATED
24.07.17.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENET
FILED BY 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
22.01.2018.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 1 OF 20 IN O.P.
(M.V) NO. 1553 OF 17 ON THE FILES OF LD.
M.A.C.T, TRIVANDRUM DATED 14.12.2020.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS NIL
