Saturday, 09, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Josemon @ Joseph Through The Power ... vs Sajayan
2021 Latest Caselaw 22030 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 22030 Ker
Judgement Date : 3 November, 2021

Kerala High Court
Josemon @ Joseph Through The Power ... vs Sajayan on 3 November, 2021
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
       Wednesday, the 3rd day of November 2021 / 12th Karthika, 1943
                   IA.NO.1/2021 IN MACA NO. 2703 OF 2012

    OP(M.V) 645/2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA.

PETITIONER/APPELLANT

  1. JOSEMON @ JOSEPH, S/O.PADAMMATTUMMAL THOMAS, THURUTHIPURAM,
     PUTHENVELIKKARA, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
     THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER THOMAS, S/O.OUSU PADAMMATTUMMAL HOUSE,
     THURUTHIPURAM, PUTHENVELIKKARA, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS


     1. SAJAYAN, S/O. KUTTAN, 7/128, GURUVILASOM,IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE,
IRINJALAKUDA, POST 686 502.

     2. THE MANAGER, NEW      INDIA   ASSURANCE   CO.    LTD.,   MAIN   ROAD,
IRINJALKUDA, 686 502.

     Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to pass an order to
return the copy of the power of attorney produced in OPMV 645/2006 before
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda.


     This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and this court's judgment
dated 11/10/2021 and upon hearing the arguments of SRI.T.N.MANOJ, Advocate
for the applicant and M/S.RENJITH THAMPAN & P.R.REENA, Advocates for the
Respondent No.1 and of M/S.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL & RENIL ANTO
KANDAMKULATHY, Advocates for the Respondent No.2, the Court passed the
following:




                                                        p.t.o
                          C.S.DIAS, J.
             ======================
                  MACA No.2703 of 2012
             ======================
         Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2021.

                             ORDER

IA 1/2021

The application is filed to direct the Registry to return

the copy of the power of attorney to the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

has stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application

that the appeal was filed by the power of attorney holder of

the petitioner. As the petitioner is employed abroad, the

petitioner requires a copy of the power of attorney to enable

his agent to realise the enhanced compensation from the

Tribunal. Therefore, the copy of the power of attorney

produced with the appeal may be returned.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent.

4. It is seen from the office notes that the lower court

MACA No.2703 of 2012

records were called by this Court and the same is with the

Registry. In the above circumstances, I direct the Registry

to return the original power of attorney to the counsel for

the petitioner on condition that he substitutes the same

with a certified copy. Thereafter, the Registry is directed to

return the original power of attorney, in accordance with

law.

IA 2/2021

The application is filed to clarify in the judgment dated

11.10.2021 passed in the appeal, that the petitioner is

entitled to recover the enhanced compensation from the

first respondent.

2. The petitioner has stated in the affidavit filed in

support of the application that, the Tribunal in the

impugned award had permitted the petitioner to recover the

compensation amount from the second respondent in the

application, as there was violation of the policy conditions.

Even though this Court had enhanced the compensation

amount and directed the petitioner to pay the enhanced

MACA No.2703 of 2012

compensation, this Court has not granted recovery rights

to the petitioner to recover the enhanced compensation

amount.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents.

4. In view of the fact that the Tribunal has in the

operative portion of the impugned award granted the

petitioner the right to recover the compensation amount

from the second respondent, as there was a violation of the

insurance policy conditions, I hold that the petitioner is

entitled to the same right to pay the compensation amount

to the first respondent and then recover the compensation

amount from the second respondent. This order shall be

read in conjunction with the judgment dated 11.10.2021 in

MACA 2703/2012.

sd/-

             sks/3.11.2021                       C.S.DIAS, JUDGE



03-11-2021                     /True Copy/              Assistant Registrar
 

 
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 : IJJ

 

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

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter