IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 8405 of 2008(A) -------------------------------- OPMV.922/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................................... PETITIONER: --------------- KRISHNAKUMAR ,S/O.SUBRAMANNIYAN PILLAI KANIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE UDAYAMPEROOR KARA,(NOW RESIDING AT PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, MUDAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. RAVINDRAN,S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, PARAPPURATHU HOUSE NEAR KEEZHOOR TEMPLE KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, KEEZHOOR KARA, ICT. 2. CC WILLIAM VARGHESE, M/S.S.M.L.MOTORS 15 RAJAMMAL LAYOUT , PONNIAHARAJAPURAM, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU 641 001. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KUNNAMKULAM BRANCH. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC FOR R1 DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY FOR R1 SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO. 8405/2008-A =: 2 := A P P E N D I X EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF CLAIM PEITITON IN OP (MV) NO.922/2005 FILED BY PETITIONRE BEFORE MACT MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY 3RD RESPONDENT IN OP(MV)NO.922/2005 BEFORE THE MACT MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF IA NO.4279/2006 FILED BEFORE MACT MUVATTUPUZHA, ALONG WITH ORDER DATED 10.04.2007. EXT.P3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2007 PASSED IN IA NO.4279/2006. // T R U E C O P Y // PA TO JUDGE RP/- ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 8405 OF 2008 A ==================== Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3(a) order passed by the MACT, Muvattupuzha in OP(MV) No.922/05 rejecting an application made by the petitioner for substituted service in respect of the 2nd respondent. It appears that what provoked the Tribunal to pass the impugned order is that substitute service was sought to be made in an address which is incorrect. 2. True, the Tribunal is right in its reasoning, but then the fact remains that in all the records including the Registration Certificate, Insurance Policy and the FIR of AMVI, the address of the 2nd respondent is as shown in the claim filed in the MACT. It is also a fact that the 2nd respondent is a resident of Tamil Nadu and it is impossible for the claimant to trace out his correct address and furnish the same to the Tribunal. 3. In this writ petition also though notice is sent to the 2nd respondent in the address as available, the same is again returned with the endorsement “no such addressee in the above address”. Counsel for the Insurance company as also the 1st respondent Tribunal are also unable WPC No.8405/08 :2 : to provide the present address. 4. In these circumstances, I feel what the petitioner has done is what is possible of him. It will be traversity of justice to turn down the claim in a Motor Accident case for the reason that the claimant, as in the circumstances in this case, is not in a position to provide the correct address of the owner of the vehicle, who is a resident of another State. In these circumstances, I feel that substituted service in the address available is the only course open to him. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P3(a) and direct that the Tribunal shall pass revised orders in the matter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp