IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 25409 of 2009(U) -------------------------- OPMV.537/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAN, RESIDING AT MUTTATHARA HOUSE, PAIMATTOM KARA, NELLIMATTOM, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.ELDHO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REMCY, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.SHAJI, PUTHUSHERIYIL HOUSE, KUDAMUNDA, POTHANICADU VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. YOUSAF, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, KAROTHUKUDI HOUSE, KANDANTHARA KARA, VENGOLA VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.25409 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is one of the respondents in O.P.(MV) Nos.537/2004 and 378/2004 before the M.A.C.T, Muvattupuzha. The Tribunal disposed of those O.Ps by a common award in so far as both O.Ps arose out of the same accident. In O.P.(MV) No.537/04, the amount awarded was more than Rs.10,000/-, where as the amount awarded in O.P.(MV) No.378/04 was less than Rs.10,000/-. With the intention of filing an appeal against the award in O.P.(MV) No.537/04, the petitioner had deposited Rs.25,000/- before the Tribunal. But, by mistake, the deposit was made in O.P.(MV) No.378/04 and in the receipt issued by the Tribunal, O.P.(MV) No.378/04 was mentioned. Petitioner filed a memo requesting the Tribunal to correct the case number in the receipt issued by the Tribunal. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal is not passing any orders in the memo. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “a) issue a direction to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Muvattupuzha to correct the W.P.(C) NO.25409 OF 2009 2 case in Ext.P2 receipt as OP(MV) No.537 of 2004 instead of OP(MV) No.378/2004. b) To pass such other orders which are deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. In view of the allegations in the writ petition I called for a report from the Tribunal. The Tribunal filed the following report. “A common award was passed in O.P. (MV)371/04, 373/04, 374/04, 375/04, 376/04, 378/04, 537/04, 1352/04 and 1353/04 on 3.12.2007. A sum of Rs.25,000/- has been deposited by the 1st respondent, Sri.M.K.Ramakrishnan, as per memo dated 7.4.09 in O.P.(MV) 378/04. Receipt for the amount was issued as per RCD No.5/09-10 dated 7.4.9. The amount was deposited in Fixed Deposit for a period of 2 years in North Malabar Gramin Bank, Muvattupuzha in the name of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. On 24.6.09, the respondent Sri.M.K.Ramakrishnan filed a memo without the original receipt issued by this Tribunal, stating that the amount deposited in O.P.(MV) 378/04 may be treated as the statutory deposit in O.P.(MV) 537/04 and pass orders accordingly. But the section clerk did not put up the said memo before me and not taken the orders. According to the section clerk on verification of the memo, he intimated the pleader's clerk to file a verified petition with affidavit along with the receipt of C.R.61. But the counsel for the respondent failed to do so and to file a proper petition with the receipt previously issued to him in the other O.P.(MV) 378/04 and to correct the deposit. Due to the oversight of the section clerk the memo was not submitted for orders. The copy of explanation put in by the concerned clerk also appended herewith. Even now, if the W.P.(C) NO.25409 OF 2009 3 petitioner in the O.P.(MV)537/04 file a proper petition along with C.R.61 receipt issued to him, the said correction can be made. But till this date the petitioner has not returned the receipt for correcting the same. Hence in the circumstance it is humbly prayed that this report may be considered with a lenient view and necessary direction may be issued.” 3. In view of the same, this writ petition is disposed of recording the above report of the Tribunal and directing the petitioner to approach the Tribunal with a proper petition along with the original receipt, as stated in the report. (S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE) spc