High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
E.K.MOHAMMED ALI HAJI, SHINAM MANZIL v. P.RAGHAVAN, S/O.AMBU - WP(C) No. 31546 of 2005(E)  RD-KL 9324 (4 June 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 31546 of 2005(E)
1. E.K.MOHAMMED ALI HAJI, SHINAM MANZIL,
2. KUNHIKARIYIL SHIHABUDHEEN,
1. P.RAGHAVAN, S/O.AMBU,
2. MESSRS UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.VALSALAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.W.P.(C) No. 31546 OF 2005
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2007
Ext.P4 order by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed an application submitted by the petitioners who were respondents 1 and 2 in OP (MV) No.684 of 1998 is under challenge in this proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution.
2. Heard Sri.Rakesh Roshan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.C.Santhosh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. Mr.Rakesh Roshan submitted that a written statement had been filed by the petitioners wherein they had contended that the vehicle in question was not driven by the 2nd petitioner at the time of the accident. Since there was some delay in filing that written statement, an application had been filed for reception of the same which was dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Counsel submitted that the only reason on which the learned Tribunal found that there was no force in the contention that the vehicle was not driven by the 2nd petitioner was that the police has registered a case against the 2nd petitioner. Inviting my attention to Ext.P3 judgment in the criminal case against the 2nd petitioner, learned counsel submitted that the 2nd petitioner was acquitted by the learned Magistrate. The judgment supports the contention that the vehicle was not driven by the WPC No.31546 of 2005 2 2nd petitioner submitted the counsel.
3. I have gone through Ext.P3. Under Ext.P3, the 2nd petitioner herein is acquitted on the reason that the prosecution has not established his guilt. There is no finding to the effect that the vehicle was driven somebody other than the 2nd petitioner. As noticed by the learned Tribunal in Ext.P4, the petitioners' application for reception of the counter filed to OP(MV) No.684 of 1998 had been dismissed and that order had attained finality. That order having attained finality, there was no contention which could have been perused by respondents 1 &
2. In other words, no useful purpose could have been served by setting aside the award. At any rate I am not prepared to agree with the learned counsel who submits that Ext.P4 requires correction under the visitorial jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution which is expected to be invoked only in exceptional circumstances. The Writ Petition fails and will stand dismissed. No costs.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGEbtt WPC No.31546 of 2005 3
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.