IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 2678 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.1998/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................. APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------- LATHEEF, AGED 39 YEARS, SON OF SAIDALAVI, THIYYATH HOUSE, P.O.PERUMUGHAM, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SAHEER, SON OF KOYA, CHANGARAMBALATH HOUSE, VELLIPARAMBA POST, KOZHIKODE-673 008. 2. PRADEEP.T., AGED 28 YEARS, SON OF RAJAN, THOTASSERY, THAYYILTHODI, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., THRIPTHI BUILDING, EAST NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE-673 011. ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR FOR R2 SRI.K.RAKESH FOR R2 SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.2678 OF 2009 --------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Basheer, J. This appeal, which is at the instance of the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, is directed against the order of dismissal of the claim petition, on the ground that the claimant was absent on the day when the case was taken up for consideration and also that he had failed to remit the court fee as ordered by the Tribunal. 2. It appears that the appellant/claimant had filed an application before the Tribunal seeking exemption from payment of court fee as provided under Rule 397 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988. The Tribunal did not grant exemption as prayed for; on the contrary, the appellant was directed to remit ½ of the court fee payable by him on the claim petition. Admittedly, even the said amount was not paid by the appellant. M.A.C.A.No.2678/2009 2 3. However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal is wholly unsustainable since Rule 397 does not contemplate such a situation. The Tribunal can either allow the prayer for exemption or reject the same. There is no provision in the Rules which prescribes payment of one half of the court fee. There appears to be some force in the above contention. As regards the absence of the appellant/claimant on the day when the case was taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the omission occurred only because a wrong date was noted by the counsel for the claimant. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the appellant in this regard. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials available on record, we are satisfied that the appellant has to be afforded another opportunity to prosecute the petition. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The Tribunal shall restore the claim petition on its file. The application, if any, submitted by the appellant M.A.C.A.No.2678/2009 3 seeking exemption from payment of court fee shall be considered and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant rule. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 31.3.2010. The Tribunal shall make an earnest endeavour to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) (P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE) ps