IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Murali Purushothaman, J
Kamalam – Appellant
Versus
Muthuraj L. – Respondent
OP (MAC) NO. 39 OF 2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court directed the claimants to refile the original petition before the tribunal having appropriate territorial jurisdiction. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
J U D G M E N T
This original petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, returning O.P.(MV) No.1467 of 2009 for presenting before proper Tribunal.
2. The petitioners herein are the wife and children of the deceased petitioner in the said O.P.(MV). The 3rd respondent Insurance Company objected to the said petition, contending that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda lacks jurisdiction to try and decide the case since the petitioners are neither temporarily nor permanently residing within the jurisdiction of the said Tribunal.
Considering the said contention, the Tribunal passed Ext.P1. 3. Though this Court issued notice to respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5, service is not complete on respondents 1, 4 and 5.
4. When the original petition came up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners will present O.P.(MV) before the proper Tribunal. 5. In the nature of the order I propose to pass, notice to the unserved respondents is dispensed with.
In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there will be a direction to the petitioners to present the original petition (O.P. (MV)) before the proper Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is for the said Tribunal to consider the question of delay.
The original petition is disposed of.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.