IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1060 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.441/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- THAHIR.K.(MINOR),AGED 16 YEARS,S/O.NAZER REP.BY NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN FATHER NAZER, S/O.KUNHUMUHAMMED KUTTY,KALARIKKAL(H),PATTAVAYAL POST,MOONNANAD VILLAGE,NANDALOOR TALUK,NILGIRI DT. THAMIL NADU,NOW R/A.KARAKUNNUMMEL(H),AMMAYIPALAM, NENMENI POST,SULTHAN BATHERY,WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. K.N.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.C.K.NARAYANAN, 11/202, B-8, CHEMBALA, TNSTC DRIVER, GUDALUR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1060 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The appellant is a minor child aged 13 years who claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 12.5.2004. The accident took place not within the State of Kerala, but within the District of Nilgiri in neighbouring Tamil Nadu. The claimant staked the claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, Wayanad. That petition was received on file and it was entertained. By the impugned order, the said petition was dismissed for the reason that the accident had taken in Nilgiri district and the petitioner and the respondents are all residing in Nilgiri district of Tamil Nadu. For that reason, the original petition was dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant first of all submits that in any case the dismissal of the original petition is not justified and at best, the petition could only have been returned for presentation before the appropriate Tribunal. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the dismissal is not at any rate justified. M.A.C.A.No.1060 of 2007 2 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant as a matter of fact is residing in Wayanad district. There was an error in showing the address of the claimant and the address was incorrectly described as in Nilgiri district, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner has already filed an application for amendment of the petition to make it clear that the appellant is residing within the district of Wayanad in Kerala. 4 Having considered all the relevant circumstances, we accept the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is really residing within the district of Wayanad within the Kerala State. We are of the opinion, in these circumstances, that the Tribunal must have entertained the application. 5. In the result:- a) This appeal is allowed; b) The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta is directed to dispose of the claim on merits. c) The appellant's prayer for amendment of the cause title to show that he resides really within the district of Wayanad in Kerala shall be allowed by the Tribunal. d) The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on M.A.C.A.No.1060 of 2007 3 15.12.2011. The Tribunal shall proceed to dispose of the claim as expeditiously thereafter, at any rate, within a period of six months from that date. e) Compliance shall be reported to this Court. A copy of this judgment shall be issued to the learned counsel for the appellant for production before the Tribunal, when the appellant appears before the Tribunal on 15.12.2011. The Registry shall also communicate a copy of the judgment immediately to the Tribunal. R.BASANT, Judge. V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj. R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1060 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011 O R D E R This petition is to condone the delay of 614 days in filing the appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the second respondent. In the circumstances explained in the affidavit, we take a lenient view. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. R.BASANT, Judge. V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj.