Moideenkutty v. Abdul Khader

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/8TH ASWINA, 1937 WP(C).No. 18551 of 2015 (T) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- MOIDEENKUTTY AGED 45 YEARS S/O HAMSA , KIZHPADPALLIYAYIL HOUSE, ATTASSERY DESAM MARUTHUR ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.SRIPATHI SMT.ANUPAMA SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. ABDUL KHADER S/O MOHAMMED, PADINJARAEKARAMMAL HOUSE, PILAPATTA PO, CHERUPULASSERY, OTTAPALAM TALUK PALAKKAD 679 503

2. ASHIF HAMZA S/O HAMZA, PADINJARAEKARAMMAL HOUSE, PILAPATTA PO, CHERUPULASSERY, OTTAPALAM TALUK PALAKKAD 679 503

3. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD XX/456/10, 2ND FLOOR, COLOR HOUSE BUILDING M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR 688 001 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 18551 of 2015 (T) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE UNUMBERED OP(MV) FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE HON'BLE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , THRISSUR EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR DATED 5/5/2015 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POLICY STATEMENT PERTAINING TO KL-51C-9666 ISSUED BY IFFCO-TOKIO DT.20.10.2014 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY SKS P.A. TO JUDGE

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

--------------------- W.P (C) No.18551 of 2015 --------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner admittedly resides at Palakkad. There is nothing to show that he conducts a business at Thrissur. There is no such averments in the claim petition even. 2.

The respondents are stationed at Palakkad. The accident took place in Palakkad District. Obviously, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad has the jurisdiction. 3.

The insurer is only an indemnifier. A claim petition would lie even without the insurer on the party array. The insurer in the instant case is at Calicut. The policy has been issued not from the office at Thrissur.

4.

Ext.P2 order returning the claim petition for representation is proper. The same is under Sec.166 (2) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the order.

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

sks