SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9587

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
RANGANATHAN. N – Appellant
Versus
AMMINI – Respondent
OP (MAC) NO. 113 OF 2025 | OPMV NO.855 OF 2018



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN, SHRI.ANTONY THOMAS
For the Respondents: SRI.A.R.NIMOD, SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE

The court ruled on the necessity of procedural compliance for addressing exparte awards in motor accident claims.

Headnote:The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order rejecting applications I.A. No.1 and I.A. No.2 filed in O.P.(M.V.) No.855 of 2018 for condoning delay and setting aside exparte award, with documentation to support illness allegations not provided. Court provisionally allowed petitioner to contest claim upon deposit of Rs.50,000, directing Tribunal to rehear the case. The definitive issues framed include the procedural propriety of the exparte award. Judgment emphasizes need for adherence to legal procedure in claims administration. The petition is allowed subject to deposit of specified amount.

Table of Content
1. challenge to order for delay in setting aside exparte award. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court conditions for granting opportunity to contest. (Para 3 , 4)
3. final ruling dependent on compliance with deposits. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order rejecting his applications, namely I.A. No.1 of 2024 and I.A. No.2 of 2024 filed in O.P.(M.V.) No.855 of 2018, to condone the delay of eight months and five days in setting aside the exparte award passed on 29.04.2023. The petitioner had submitted before the trial Court that he came to know about the passing of the award only when he received the notice in the execution petition.

2. Applications were rejected by the Tribunal, stating that no documents support the plea of illness of the father of the petitioner, raised in the petition.

3. Upon admission of the original petition, an interim order was passed directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). It is submitted by both sides that the said amount was deposited, and a receipt is also produced.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle was covered with valid insurance. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner complied with the interim order passed by this Court, I am inclined to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to contest the claim petition on condition that the petitioner deposit a further amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) within one month from today. On the petitioner remitting Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), the impugned order as well as the exparte award will stand set aside. There will be a direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, to rehear and pass fresh orders in O.P.(M.V.) No.855 of 2018, in accordance with law, within three months from the date of the first appearance. There will be a further direction to the claimant, the 1st respondent herein, to implead the insurance company also.

5. In case the petitioner does not remit the said amount within one month from today, the petitioner will lose the benefit of this judgment, and the impugned order will stand confirmed. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16.03.2026. Needless to say, the deposits made by the petitioner will be subject to the final orders to be passed in the claim petition.

The original petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top