Indulekha (Minor) vs Shaijan Varghese
2021 Latest Caselaw 22052 Ker

MACA NO. 2546 OF 2009
                                  1

            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
                        MACA NO. 2546 OF 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 713/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
            CLAIMS TRIBUNAL MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

          INDULEKHA (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY
          REGHURAMAN, S/O.KUNJIRAMA PANICKER,, THAZHATHUPUTHEN
          PURAYIL HOUSE, NEAR, LATHA THEATRE, MUVATTUPUZHA.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.V.C.JAMES
          SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL



RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6:

    1     SHAIJAN VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE,
          PANJIKULANGARA VEEDU, ERUMELI KARA, KUNNATHUNADU
          VILLAGE.

    2     PAUL SO.KORATH KOLANGALAYIL HOUSE
          KURUPPUMPADY KARA, PERUMBAVOOR.

    3     THE BRANCH MANGER
          NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., ALUVA DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
          P.B.NO.89,, URUMBATH BUILDINGS, PUMP JUNCTION, ALUVA,
          PIN 683 101.

    4     HANEEFA SO.PAREETH THANNISSERIL
          HOUSE, ERUMELI KARA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE,,
          KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

    5     JOLLY C.A. CHENAYAMAKKIL HOUSE
          SOUTH MARADY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA.
 MACA NO. 2546 OF 2009
                                   2



    6        THE BRANCH MANAGER
             ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,, MUVATTUPUZHA BRANCH,
             MUVATTUPUZHA.

             BY ADVS.
             SMT.DEEPA GEORGE
             SRI.DENU JOSEPH
             SRI.P.JAYASANKAR
             SRI.JUFIN GEORGE VALOORAN
             SRI.SAJI MATHEW
             SRI.TITUS MANI




     THIS    MOTOR   ACCIDENT   CLAIMS   APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 MACA NO. 2546 OF 2009
                              3




                        JUDGMENT

Despite the order dated 20.10.2021, the appellant has

not taken steps to effect service of notice on the 1 st

respondent. The appeal is of the year 2009. It is assumed

that the appellant is no longer desirous of prosecuting the

appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed for default.

ma/3.11.2021                           Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE



                         /True copy/