Sarath vs M/S.National Insurance Co. Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 15036 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
      FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1943
                      OP (MAC) NO. 56 OF 2021
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 2093/2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
         CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER:

          SARATH
          AGED 29 YEARS
          S/O. SAILAN, T.C. 36/1683, SANTHUMUDUMBIL VEEDU,
          SUBHASH NAGAR, VALLAKKADAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT,
          PIN - 695023.

          BY ADV RINU .S.ASWAN



RESPONDENT:

          M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
          REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, HAVING OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR,
          K.K. BUILDING, ARISTO JN, THAMPANOOR, TRIVANDRUM, PIN -
          695014.

          BY ADV LAL GEORGE




     THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.07.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(MAC) No.56/2021                            2

                                       JUDGMENT

Petitioner herein is the claimant in O.P.(M.V) No.2093/2016 of the MACT,

Thiruvananthapauram. When the matter came up for evidence, petitioner filed

I.A.No.2/2020 requesting the Tribunal to direct the District Medical Board to

assess the functional disability and loss of earning capacity of the claimant. The

above application was allowed by the impugned order, however, with a rider that the

petitioner will not be entitled for interest during the period, from the date of the

order till the date of disposal of the O.P. This is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The impugned order does not indicate the reasoning for such a condition.

Definitely, if any of the party causes delay in the proceedings or in the disposal of the

case, the court is competent to impose such conditions as it deem fit. Normally, this

court will not interfere with such orders in exercise of the discretion of the court

below except in exceptional cases.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Lal George, learned

Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company.

4. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner voluntarily caused

delay of the judicial proceedings or that he has not co-operated with the trial. Having

considered the entire facts, I am inclined to direct that the impugned order will stand

modified by deleting that portion of the order, by which interest was denied to the

petitioner from the date of the order in the I.A No.2/2020. till the final award.

Accordingly, the original petition is allowed to the limited extent as

mentioned above. Remaining part of the order will survive.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

dpk

APPENDIX OF OP (MAC) 56/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.02 OF 2020 IN OP(MV) NO.2093 OF 2016 DATED 21.01.2021 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE M.A.C.T, TRIVANDRUM.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL PETITION ON THE FILES OF THE LD.M.A.C.T, TRIVANDRUM DATED 30.09.2016.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 09.05.2019.

Exhibit P4                A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY
                          APPLICATION NO.02 OF 2020 IN OP(M.V)
                          NO.2093 OF 2016 DATED 30.11.2020 DATED
                          21.01.2021 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE
                          M.A.C.T, TRIVANDRUM.