IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 403 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.164/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA, WAYANAD .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: ------------------------------ JAFFER, S/O.USSAIN, AGED 22 YEARS, VELLOTTIL HOUSE, MANAMCHIRA, POOMALA P.O., S.BATHERY, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.G.G.MANOJ RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ 1. T.M.MOIDHEEN KOYA, S/O.POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.V.MATHEW, KOCHUMAMMOTTIL HOUSE, KARIKUZHI MURI, THALAVADI VILLAGE. 2. ABDUL RAHIMAN, MANICHIRA, POOLAMA P.O., S.BATHERRY, OWNER OF AUTORIKASAW NO.KL-10/7601. 3. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., KALPATTA. BY ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 403 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, Wayanad, in OP(MV) 164/97. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident on 16.4.91. 2. The Insurance Company had raised a contention that the petition is not maintainable for the reason that an earlier petition filed by the same petitioner on the same cause of action had been dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation on 2.4.04. The said OP(MV) was numbered as 168/93. 3. It is true that after coming into force of the amended Act, provision dealing with the limitation has been taken away. It is a settled principle that if the matters of such cases are pending before the appellate or revisional jurisdiction certainly, one will be entitled to the benefit of the Act. But when the matter has been dismissed and it has been allowed to become final, the law precludes the party from filing another application on the same cause of action. I find the Tribunal was perfectly justified in finding that the petition is not maintainable. Therefore it does not suffer from any infirmity. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps