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) 14041

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
R.SASIDHARAN NAIR – Appellant
Versus
P.P ROCKEY – Respondent
OP (MAC) NO. 13 OF 2026 | OPMV NO.1372 OF 2010



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.R. NIMOD, M.A. AUGUSTINE
For the Respondents: P.K.MANOJKUMAR

Proper authentication of affidavits is necessary for acceptance by the Tribunal, ensuring valid procedural compliance.

Headnote:The case examines a petition filed to direct the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to act on memos regarding deposited amounts. The Tribunal rejected affidavits due to lack of proper authentication. The Court finds the need for proper documentation to process the request swiftly, leading to the petition's disposal. The final outcome is that the Tribunal will act on compliance with required documentation.

Table of Content
1. petition filed for procedural orders on deposited claims. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court finds deficiencies in affidavits, requires proper documentation. (Para 3 , 4)
3. the petition is disposed with directives for the tribunal. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

The original petition is filed with the following prayers:-

(i) issue a direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, to act on Ext-P3-P6 memo’s and pass appropriate orders accepting Ext-P7 to P10 “one and same” affidavits and transfer the amounts in deposit to the petitioners as apportioned to them in O.P (M.V) 1372/2010.

(ii) issue such other order or direction as this honourable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. This Court had directed the Registry to get a report from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned as to why Exts.P3 to P6 memos submitted by the claimants for transfer of the deposited amounts were not allowed.

3. Pursuant to the above order, a communication has been received dated 13.02.2026 stating that Exts.P7 to P10 affidavits produced by petitioners 1 to 4 cannot be treated as a solemn declaration relating to the subject matter in question, as there was no affirmation or swearing of the affidavit. There is also no proper verification in the affidavit. There is no reason stated for the discrepancy with regard to the address of the petitioners. Further, after the signature of the respective applicants, it is written as “What is known by these names in the same person/one's own house name/address” and below the same, the gazetted officer put his signature. It is also stated that there is no proper authentication by the person before whom the affidavit is sworn, and in the absence of due affirmation or swearing, verification and proper authentication/attestation, Exts.P7 to P10 cannot be treated as affidavits.

4. However, it is stated that if the petitioners represent Exts.P3 to P6 memos with the required documents directed to be produced or on production of a proper sworn affidavit and giving a sworn statement regarding the discrepancies in the address of the petitioners, the amount can be credited forthwith to the bank account of the respective petitioners.

5. The above statements are recorded.

6. On the petitioners complying with the same, the Tribunal will pass appropriate orders, without any further delay, remitting the amount to the bank account of the respective petitioners.

The Original petition is disposed of 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