LAWS(KER)-2001-11-6

JAMAL Vs. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

Decided On November 09, 2001
JAMAL Appellant
V/S
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. (MV) 48/99 filed by the petitioner before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha was dismissed for default. Petitioner filed I. A. 1565/2000 for restoring the Original Petition. That petition was allowed on condition as per Ext. P3 order directing deposit of Rs. 800/- towards costs on or before 27.1.2001. But before 27.01.2001, the amount was not deposited, instead, the above amount of costs was paid to the counsel for the Insurance Company on 23.01.2001. As the amount was not deposited, I. A. 1565/2000 was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I. A. 443/2001 for restoring a restoration petition alleging on the ground that the costs was paid even prior to the stipulated date. The above petition was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the above orders, petitioner filed the present O. P.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

(3.) It is regrettable to note that the Tribunal had adopted a hyper technical approach in the matter. When the cost was paid to the opposite side and that fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the petition should have been allowed instead of dismissing it and dragging the parties to approach before this court. It appears that the Tribunal could not understand the spirit of the benevolent legislation regarding the award of compensation to the injured victims and the legal representatives of deceased in motor accident cases.