IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 33258 of 2009(B) -------------------------- OPMV.1166/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: --------------- K.AHAMMED, S/O.SOOPY, RESIDING AT KUNNEMMAL HOUSE, P.O.THAROPAYIL, VIA.PONNERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A.THAJUDHEEN S/O.ALIARKUTTY, AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT.RASHEEDA MANZIL,THEKKEPURAM, PADANNA P.O.KASARAGOD DIST. BY ADV. MR. M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., PUNE. ADV. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.33258 OF 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL PETITION O.P (MV) N0. 1166 OF 2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONR BEFORE THE MACT, THALASSERRY AS I.A. 3765 OF 2009 IN OP (MV) NO. 1166 OF 2004 EXT. P2(a) : TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A. 3765 OF 2009 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 12.10.2009 AND ITS TYPED COPY. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 33258 Of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 1st day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is the claimant before the MACT Thalassery in OP (MV) No. 1166 of 2004, is aggrieved of the dismissal of Ext. P2 I.A. No. 3765 of 2009 preferred in the said O.P. (MV) seeking to call for certain documents. The petitioner also seeks for a direction to be given to the Tribunal to finalize Ext. P1 claim petition within a time frame. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company as well. 3. It is revealed from the materials on record that there were three respondents in Ext. P2 I.A. preferred by the petitioner, who were parties to the OP (MV), whereas in the present writ petition there is only one respondent i.e. Insurance Company/third respondent in concerned OP (MV). The other persons, who were respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal are not chosen to be impleaded in the party array. 4. This being the position, this Court does not propose to go into the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Tribunal in Ext. P2; more so in view of the fact that any Award passed in OP (MV), if aggrieved, W.P. (C) No. 33258 OF 2009 2 could be challenged before this Court, by resorting to the statutory remedy available under Section 173 of the MV Act.. 5. In the above circumstances, the issue with regard to the necessity or otherwise of the documents sought to be called for by the petitioner in the I.A. is left open and the Tribunal is directed to finalize Ext. P1 claim petition and pass the final Award in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, if still pending, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the Tribunal for further steps. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd