IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 OP (MACT).No. 2570 of 2011() ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ALI, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 45 YEARS, THURUTHUMMEL HOUSE, PARAPPURAM KARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS: 1. SANTHOSH, MUTHUSSERY MADATHIL, THRIKARIYOOR. 2. SHIJO TOMES, ODUVELIL, PUTHUMALA. 3. M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PERUMBAVOOR. THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN OPMAC 2570/2011 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN OP MV 582/06 BEFORE THE MACT, MUVATTUPUZHA EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE SUB REGIONAL RRANSPORT OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR DT. 30.1.06 EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE EXT. P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN IA 1689/2011 BEFORE THE MACT,MUVATTUPUZHA /TRUE COPY/ P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------- O.P.(MAC)No.2570 of 2011 O ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the first respondent in O.P.(MV)No.582 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. The said claim petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 award passed on 18.2.2010. By that award, the petitioner was held liable to pay a sum of `.93,140/- as compensation along with interest thereon at 9% per annum from the date of application till date of payment. Though the vehicle was covered by a valid policy of insurance, the insurer was exonerated from liability to pay the compensation for the reason that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence. Stating that petitioner was not served with notice of the claim petition and was unaware of the filing and disposal of the claim petition and only when he made enquiries after service of demand notices under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, he came to know about the same, the petitioner has filed I.A.Nos.1689 of 2011 and 1690 of 2011, the former to condone the delay of 1655 days in filing the application to set aside the order setting him ex parte and the latter, to set aside the order setting him ex parte. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha to OPMAC 2570/2011 2 dispose of the said applications expeditiously. 2. From a reading of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 1689/2011, it is evident that the case set out by the petitioner is that before he was set ex parte, notice of the claim petition was not served on him. Apart from that he has no other explanation for his failure to appear before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. In such circumstances, as the petitioner seeks to set aside the ex parte order only on the ground that he was not served with notice of the claim petition, and it is a matter which can be easily verified, I am inclined to direct the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to dispose of I.A.Nos.1689 of 2011 and 1690 of 2011 in O.P.(MV)No.582 of 2006 expeditiously. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha to dispose of I.A.Nos.1689 of 2011 and 1690 of 2011 in O.P.(MV)No.582 of 2006 expeditiously and in any event, within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Until such time, the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. (P.N.Ravindran, Judge) tkv