A Division Bench of this Court has in Bhoopesh v. New IndiaAssurance Co. Ltd
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.---------------------------W.P.(C) Nos. 37229 OF 2008 & 5398 OF 2009--------------------------Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides. The petitionerin W.P.(C) No. 37229 of 2008 is the Managing Director of the Kerala StateRoad Transport Corporation. In the said writ petition, he challengesExt.P2 award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22A ofthe Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, on a petition filed by the firstrespondent claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in amotor accident. By Ext.P2, the Permanent Lok Adalat awarded to the firstrespondent the sum of Rs.73,584/- as compensation with interest. Thefirst respondent in W.P.(C) No. 37229 of 2008 has filed W.P.(C) No. 5398of 2009 aggrieved by Ext.P3 award, in so far as it limits the compensationto the sum of Rs.73,584/-. In that writ petition, he seeks enhancement ofthe compensation.2. A Division Bench of this Court has in Bhoopesh v. New IndiaAssurance Co. Ltd. (2009 (3) KLT 699) held that the Permanent LokAdalat does not have jurisdiction to enerytain claim petitions arising out ofmotor accidents. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court, it has to be necessarily held that Ext.P2award produced in W.P.(C) No. 37229 of 2008, passed by the Permanent W.P.(C) Nos.37229/08 & 5398/092Lok Adalat in O.P. No.266 of 2007, filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5398 of 2009 is one without the sanction or authority of law. Therefore thesaid award cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow W.P.(C) No. 37229 of 2008 and quash Ext.P2award. W.P.(C) No. 5398 of 2009 is disposed of with the observation thatit will be open to the petitioner therein to move the Motor Accidents ClaimTribunal having jurisdiction seeking compensation for the injuries sustainedby him. Since no period of limitation is presently prescribed for filing anapplication for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the petitioner need not have any apprehension that his claim will berejected as time barred. The petitioners' contentions in these writ petitionsare kept open. The parties will not be bound by the findings andobservations made by the Permanent Lok Adalat.P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGEvps
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — s. 22A.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 02 Nov 2009. The bench was P N RAVINDRAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.