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) 30448

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Murali Purushothaman, J
Kamalam – Appellant
Versus
Muthuraj L. – Respondent
OP (MAC) NO. 39 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N.Ajith
For the Respondents: Lal K. Joseph

An original petition for motor accident claims must be filed before the Tribunal having appropriate territorial jurisdiction; if returned for lack thereof, the petitioners are directed to present the claim before the competent forum within the prescribed timeline.

Headnote:The present petition challenges a tribunal order returning an original petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court observed that the legal representatives of the deceased claimant admitted the jurisdictional deficiency. The central issue pertains to whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can entertain a claim where the claimants lack local residence. The ratio of the order focuses on the procedural requirement for parties to move the court having appropriate jurisdiction as mandated by the statutory framework for motor accident claims.

Result: The court directed the petitioners to present the original petition before the proper tribunal within one month, leaving the question of delay to the competent tribunal.

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.

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