IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2150 of 2008(E) ------------------------------- OPMV.1530/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: -------------- MINI VARGHESE, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O. LATE VARGHESE @ BABY, PULICKAKUDY HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM KARA, KUTHUKUZHY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE. BY MR.P.V.ELIAS, ADVOCATE. MR.MURALI MANOHAR.R, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. RAJENDRA PRAHLAD KADAM, A.P.PIMPODE BUDRLIKTAL, KOREGAON DIST., SATHARA, MAHARASHTRA, PIN-415 501. 2. SUNIL SANKAR GADS, S/O. SANKAR, LALGUM HOUSE, KATTAVU TALUK, SATHARA DIST., MAHARASHTRA-415 501. 3. BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 'SOHAM', SANTHRI NAGAR, RAHIMATPUR ROAD, KOREGAON, SATHARA DIST., MAHARASHTRA-415 501. 4. A.R.SANTHOSH KUMAR, ATHIPPILLIL HOUSE, KUTHUKUZHY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. W.P.(C) No.2150/2008 ...2... 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA BRANCH, MADAPARAMBIL CHAMBERS, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY MR.KKM.SHERIF, ADVOCATE, FOR R5 MR.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN, ADVOCATE, FOR R5 MR.S.MAMMU, ADVOCATE, FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.2150/2008 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE I.A.No.4519/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OP(MV) No.1530/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT. P2 : COPY OF THE I.A.No.4529/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OP(MV) No.1530/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT. P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15.12.2007 IN I.A.No.4519/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OP(MV) No.1530/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT. P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.15/12/2007 IN I.A.No.4529/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OP(MV) No.1530/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT, MUVATTUPUZHA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.2150 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Exts.P3 and P4 orders passed by the MACT, Muvattupuzha in I.A.Nos.4519/2007 and 4529/2007 in OP No.1530/2003 are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is the claimant in the aforesaid claim petition. Following an accident that resulted in the death of her husband, she instituted the proceedings, in which she filed Ext.P1 for accepting additional witness schedule, and Ext.P2 for issuing summons to the additional witnesses. It was these two I.As that were rejected by the Tribunal as per Exts.P3 & P4. In Ext.P3, on the ground that the application filed for accepting witness schedule was a belated one, the Tribunal dismissed the same. Consequently, the application for issuing summons to the additional witnesses also was rejected by Ext.P4. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was on account of the delay in collecting details about the additional witnesses that the delay in filing the applications arose. It is stated WP(C) No.2150/2008 -2- that there was no intention at all to protract the proceedings contrary to what has been found by the Tribunal. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the insurance companies also. They are supporting the order and argued that the applications were belated and were for protracting the proceedings. 5. On the materials available, I am not in a position to say that the intention of the petitioner was to protract the proceedings. It should be remembered that she is the claimant, in a case, for damages following the death of her husband and she should have no reason for protracting such a proceeding. True, there has been delay in making application. But, even if a slight delay has occurred, that should not in all cases, result in an order shutting out evidence that a litigant feels it necessary to let in. In my view, the petitions ought to have been allowed. Therefore, I am not prepared to sustain Exts.P3 & P4 and these orders will stand set aside. 6. The Tribunal shall pass orders allowing Exts.P1 & P2 and pass orders, on production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg