IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 28379 of 2006(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- INDUS MOTOR CO.PVT.LTD., APPLETON PLAZA, RAJAJI ROAD, KOCHI-682 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P. SIVADASAN. BY ADVOCATES. MR.N.SUKUMARAN MR.S.SHYAM RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., COCHIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AJAY VIHAR, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI-16, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CALICUT-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., SOUNDARYA BUILDINGS, M.G. ROAD, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 4. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., CITY BRANCH OFFICE NO.2, NO.10/1109, FIRST FLOOR, OPP.T.V.S., N.H. ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 5. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., TRIVANDRUM DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MALANKARA BUILDING, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. 6. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., CALICUT DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KALLAI ROAD, CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. 7. INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, PULINAT BUILDINGS, 2ND FLOOR, OPP.COCHIN SHIPYARD, M.G. ROAD, COCHIN-15 BYADVOCATES. MR.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R1 TO3 MR..BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FOR R7 MR.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) FOR R4 TO 6 MR.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R4 TO 6 MR.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL FOR R4 TO 6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28379 of 2006(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 24.8.2002 AGAINST RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 24.8.2002 AGAINST RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ON EXT.P1 OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 26.6.2002. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN O.P. NO. 26301/2002 DATED 6.11.2002. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO SHOWING SUBMISSION OF THE ORIGINAL OF EXT.P1 BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 14.1.2003. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO SHOWING SUBMISSION OF THE ORIGINAL OF EXT.P2 BEFORE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 14.1.2003. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY F THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGHT COURT OF KERALA IN W.A. NO. 224/2003 DATED 5.9.2005. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF SIVADASAN.P. DATED 13.8.2002. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No.28379 of 2006 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner made Exhibits P1 and P2 complaints before the 7th respondent against respondents 1 to 6. By Exhibit P3 order, the 7th respondent returned the complaints as not maintainable. That order was challenged before this Court in O.P.Nos.26301 of 2008 and 26302 of 2008. This Court by Exhibit P4 judgment, held that the complaints are maintainable and that the 7th respondent has to adjudicate the claim made in Exhibits P1 and P2 as directed in Exhibit P4 Judgment. 2. Petitioner submits that by Exhibits P5 and P6, he resubmitted Exhibits P1 and P2 complaints. In the meanwhile, against Exhibit P4 judgment, the respondents therein filed appeals as W.A. Nos. 95,224 and 228 of 2003. Those writ appeals were disposed of by Exhibit P7 common judgment with the following direction; “We therefore set aside the judgment of the W.P.(C) No.28379/2006 2 learned single judge and uphold the order of the Insurance Ombudsman. On the basis f the declaration of law made by learned single judge, several complaints might have already entertained by the Insurance Ombudsman or pending consideration. By passage of time, it would not be possible to re-agitate their claim in a civil court. We hold that the declaration of law made by us would act only prospectively. The writ appeals are allowed.” 3. The complaint of the petitioner is that despite Exhibit P7 judgment, the 7th respondent has not taken into consideration Exhibits P1 and P2 complaints and has not passed orders thereon. 4. As is evident from paragraph 9 of Exhibit P7 judgment, this Court declared the law prospectively. If that be so, direction of the learned Single Judge contained in Exhibit P4 judgment that Exhibits P1 and P2 complaints made shall be treated as maintainable, is binding on the 7th respondent and the 7th W.P.(C) No.28379/2006 3 respondent is bound to consider Exhibits P1 and P2 complaints on merit and pass order thereon. In view of the above position, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the 7th respondent shall consider and dispose of Exhibits P1 and P2 complaints made by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of copy of this judgment. Needless to say, orders shall be passed with notice to parties to the complaints. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm