Monday, 04, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Kumaran vs C.Ramamoorthy
2021 Latest Caselaw 9385 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 9385 Ker
Judgement Date : 19 March, 2021

Kerala High Court
Kumaran vs C.Ramamoorthy on 19 March, 2021
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

     FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                        MACA.No.762 OF 2008

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO. 373/2001 DATED 21-06-2006 OF MOTOR
               ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,THRISSUE


APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             KUMARAN, S/O.KOTHA
             RESIDING AT MANNUMKATTIL HOUSE,
             P.O.RAMAVARMAPURAM,,
             THRISSUR DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
             SRI.P.S.APPU
             SRI.JIBU P THOMAS

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

      1      C.RAMAMOORTHY, S/O.CHINNAPPA GOUNDER,
             RESIDING AT NO.22/1,1ST CROSS,
             CHAMARAJPET,, BANGLORE-18.

      2      S.MADESHU SO.SHANMUGHA PANDARAM
             RESIDING AT 5/1,24,
             VALLUVAR STREET,P.O.KONGANAPURAM, SANKARI TALUK,
             SALEM DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU.

      3      THE UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
             BRANCH OFFICE, 1/23-G,
             NEW IDAPPADI ROAD,
             SANKARI, TALUK, SALEM DISTRICT,
             TAMIL NADU-637301.

             R1, R3 BY ADV. SMT.S.JAYASREE


     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA.No.762 OF 2008
                                    2




                                 C.S.DIAS,J
                       ------------------------
                          M.A.C.A.No.762 of 2008
                       ------------------------
                    Dated this the 19th day of March, 2021

                                JUDGMENT

Despite the order dated 01.03.2021, the appellant

has not taken steps to effect service of notice on

respondents 1 and 2. The appeal is of the year 2008.

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 19.03.2021

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter