IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 MACA.No. 1673 of 2004 -------------------------------------- OP(MV)NO.1462/1994 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VINAYA SHENOY, KANAKALAYAM, LAKSHMI NADA, KOLLAM. 2. SWATHY, KANAKALAYAM, LAKSHMI NADA, KOLLAM. 3. SWASTH, KANAKALAYAM, LAKSHMI NADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. CHUPPAN V., PRAMATHI ROAD, NAMAKKAL. 2. THE MANAGER, M/S CHELLAPPA ROADWAYS, NAMATHI ROAD, NAMAKKAL. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, SALEM, TAMILNADU. 4. A.N. GUNASHENOY AND BROTHERS HARDWARE MERCHANT, KOLLAM. 5. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, KUNDARA. ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3 & 5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.1673 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of May 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. This appeal is posted before the bench in the defect list, since service of notice on respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not complete. 2. What is under challenge in the appeal is the award passed by the Tribunal in respect of the accident which admittedly took place on December 1, 1991. 3. The legal heirs of deceased driver of a private car contended that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of a lorry bearing Regn.No.TMT 9582 which was lying across the road. The allegation was that the driver started the lorry abruptly and it moved in reverse direction without any signal. The deceased tried to avert a collision by swerving the car to one side. However, he could not succeed in doing so and the lorry collided with the car resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are stated to be driver and owner of the lorry mentioned above. But the Tribunal noticed that the police had registered a case against the deceased himself for his rash and negligent driving. The CD file was perused by the Tribunal and it was noticed that there was not even a mention about the involvement of a lorry either in the FIR or in the hospital records. Further, the records revealed that the car in question was registered in the name of a firm in which the deceased was a partner. M.A.C.A.No.1673 OF 2004 :: 2 :: 5. The Tribunal had carefully perused the case diary file. Significantly none of the claimants chose to appear before the Tribunal to adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary. It was in the above circumstance that the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition by award dated December 10, 2003. 6. Though this appeal was filed way back in 2004, no effective steps have been taken by the appellant to complete service of notice. Today learned counsel for the appellant made a persuasive plea to give the appellant an opportunity to take out notice to respondents 1 and 2 through paper publication. We are not persuaded to accede to the above request, particularly, in the nature of the contentions made in the claim petition and also the fact that the accident had occurred more than 19 years ago. From the conduct of the claimants, it is evident that no useful purpose will be served if a further opportunity is granted to them. Keeping in view all the above facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to retain this appeal on the file of this court any further. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes