Sreekumar vs Rajan
2021 Latest Caselaw 10645 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

   MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       MACA.No.175 OF 2013

 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO. 980/2005 DATED 25-08-2012 OF
        MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,NEYYATTINKARA


APPELLANT/APPELLANT:

            SREEKUMAR, S/O.SIDASIVAN,
            PUNNACKADU PLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
            PERUMPAZHUTHOOR,NEYYATTINKARA,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI
            SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
            SRI.P.M.JOSEPH

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

      1     RAJAN
            LEKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, KOTTACHIVILA,
            KUNNATHUKAL, PARASSALA. 695 502.

      2     MADHU
            S/O.MOHANAN, ACHU NIVAS,
            NEAR PAZHANCHIRA TEMPLE, MUTTATHARA,
            KAMALESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND PRESENT
            ADDRESS IS ARITHEN VILA, TC.43/1041,
            PARUTHIKUZHI, MANACAUD.P.O,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-9

            (O.P. IS DISMISSED AS AGAINST R2 AS PER ORDER
            DATED 2.05.2009). 695 009.

      3     THE MANAGER
            NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
            K.N.MATHEW BUILDING, G.A.COIL ROAD, STATUE,
            TRIVANDRUM. 695 001.

            BY ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN

     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 29.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 MACA.No.175 OF 2013
                                    2




                                 C.S.DIAS,J
                      ------------------------
                          MACA No.175 of 2013
                      ------------------------
                   Dated this the 29th day of March, 2021

                               JUDGMENT

Despite the order dated 08.03.2021, the appellant

has not taken steps to effect service of notice on the 2 nd

respondent. The appeal is of the year 2013. Hence, it is

assumed that the appellant is no longer desirous in

prosecuting the appeal.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed for default.

Sd/- C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

dlk 29.03.2021