IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 551 of 2005(G) ---------------------- OPMV.1352/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT(S): /APPLICANT --------------------------------- ASHRAF, S/O.PEERU MUHAMMED, KANNERUVILAKATHU VEEDU,KATTACKAL, KOPPAM, KUTHIRAKULAM (PO), VIA-VEMBAYAM, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.N.NARAYANAN NAIR SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN SRI.A.G.GIRISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------- 1. P.GOPALAKRISHNAN CHETTIYAR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN CHETTIYAR, VILAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PIRAPPANCODE (P.O), TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 2. C.KRISHNANKUTTY, CHAYARAKUNNIL PUTHEN VEEDU, VAMANAPURAM (P.O), TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 3. M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, C.W.C. BUILDING, L.M.S.COMPOUND, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM. 4. K.AMMARI, KAMAVAIKADEY, PERUMPATTY (P.O), SIVADHAPURAM-VIA, SALEM DISTRICT. 5. R.SRINIVASAN, DOOR NO.81, NETTIMEDU, SANKARAI MAIN ROAD, SALEM-2. 6. M/S.ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.II, ST.MARY VILLA, ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE (PO), TRIVANDRUM-11. ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU FOR R3 SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R6 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R6 SRI.M.DINESH FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 551 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order of dismissal of O.P.1352/98 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal. The claimant alleged to have sustained injuries in a road accident while he was travelling in a mini lorry. The crux of the matter is that the very same claimant had moved a petition for compensation as O.P.(MV)1569/92. It is submitted that the said petition was dismissed for default. It is true that the principles of resjudicata may not apply as such in such cases as S.11 contemplates a decision on issues. But the provisions of Order 9 of Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to such proceedings. 2. At the out set I may like to state that by virtue of Rule 395 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle's Rules Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extended to the Claims Tribunals and therefore Order 9 CPC will have impact on the M.A.C.A. 551 OF 2005 -:2:- proceedings before the Tribunal. Then I will refer to Order 9 Rule 9. Under Order 9 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, “Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under Rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non- appearance when the suit was called on for hearing.” 3. So Order 9 Rule 9 envisages a situation whereby there is a bar to institute a fresh suit and further it enables the party to have redressal of the grievance by making an application to set aside such a dismissal. Instead of resorting to the legal procedure contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure when it is extended to the Claims Tribunal filing of a new application will be a bar. Therefore filing of a fresh application that too before another Claims Tribunal most probably having umbrella or protection under M.A.C.A. 551 OF 2005 -:3:- the Amended Act is not maintainable and therefore the Tribunal was perfectly justified in dismissing the O.P.(MV). Appeal is therefore dismissed accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-