Vasanthi.K.R vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 9323 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 25521 OF 2022
PETITIONER/:

          VASANTHI.K.R
          AGED 42 YEARS
          W/O LATE RADHAKRISHANAN.K.A, KOCHUKULAM HOUSE,
          NANDHIPULAM.P.O., THRISSUR. , PIN - 680312
          BY ADV RAJESH CHAKYAT


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE
          DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN -
          695001
    2     THE INSURANCE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
          INSURANCE DIRECTORATE,
          TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHAKADU, THAIKKAD P.O.,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. , PIN - 695014
    3     THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
          VARANTHARAPPILLY POLICE STATION,
          VARANTHARAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. , PIN - 680303

          G.P. SRI.JIMMY GEORGE.
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 25521 OF 2022
                             2




                       JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed by the widow of Late

Radhakrishnan. K.A who was the member in Group

Personal Accident Insurance Scheme (Ext.P2) of the 1 st

respondent. According to the petitioner, while her

husband was riding his handicapped scooter, he lost

control of the vehicle and the vehicle hit on a wall and

he died due to the injuries sustained in the said

accident.

2. The petitioner preferred a claim as per Ext.P2

Scheme claiming compensation before the 2nd

respondent. However, the same was rejected by Ext.P1

stating that the husband of the petitioner was not

having a valid driving licence at the time of the

accident. She preferred Ext.P3 appeal against Ext.P1

before the 1st respondent as per Clause 12(a) of Ext.P2

Scheme along with an application to condone the delay. WP(C) NO. 25521 OF 2022

The limited prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to

the 1st respondent to dispose of Ext.P3.

3. The learned Government Pleader submits that

the appeal has to be preferred within a period of 60

days as per clause 12 (a) of Ext.P2 Scheme and Ext.P2

does not provide any provision to condone delay in filing

this appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that Ext.P2 provides for power to the 1 st

respondent to entertain Ext.P3 appeal after condoning

the delay.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case

and having considered the submissions made at the Bar,

there will be a direction to the 1 st respondent to take up

Ext.P3 appeal for consideration along with the

application to condone delay and pass appropriate

orders thereon within a period of three months, after

hearing the petitioner either physically or on virtual

mode. I make it clear that that I have not considered

the merits of Ext.P3 or expressed any opinion with WP(C) NO. 25521 OF 2022

regard to the power of the 1 st respondent to condone

the delay.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE al/-

WP(C) NO. 25521 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25521/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2017 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE CLAIM Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF GROUP PERSONAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE SCHEME Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.07.2022 PREFERRED BY PETITIONER EXCEPT DOCUMENTS