IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 429 of 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.4253/2008 Dated 05/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION --------------------------------------------- C.S.ANANDAN, VADASSERITHEKKETHIL, VALLIKKADAVU, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WRIT PETITION ------------------------------------------ 1. VIJAYAKUMARI, W/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, VIJAYA NIVAS, THEKKE MURI, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM. 2. SANIL KUMAR, S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, VIJAYA NIVAS, THEKKE MURI, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM. 3. SASEENDRA BABU, S/O.SUKUMARAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM. ADDL. RESPONDENT: 4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLLAM. (ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.26.10.09 IN IA NO.1074/09) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.NO.429/2008 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 8th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He was the claimant in O.P.(M.V) No.2042/1994, on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. Owing to the absence of the petitioner and his counsel repeatedly, the above O.P was dismissed for default on 2.12.2000. Later, on 2.9.2004 an application for restoration of the same was filed. Since there was a delay of 1337 days in filing the application, Ext.P3 petition to condone the said delay was also filed. The Tribunal considered the reasons given for the delay and rejected Ext.P3 by Ext.P4 order. Therefore, the application for restoration of the O.P was also dismissed. Challenging Ext.P4, the Writ Petition was filed. The WA No.429/2008 - 2 - learned Single Judge held that the Tribunal has passed Ext.P4, having regard to the relevant facts and giving cogent reasons. Therefore, interference was not called for, it was held. As a result, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 2. We went through the affidavit filed in support of Ext.P3 petition to condone the delay. We find that no proper explanation is given for the long delay of 1337 days in filing the application for restoration. The only reason given was that the claimant was laid up with arthritis and after he was cured, he enquired about the fate of the case and came to know of the same. The facts would show that after filing the O.P in 1994, he has chosen to take interest in the matter only in 2004. So, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the petition for condonation of delay. Exercising the power of judicial review, we find that no ground has been made out to interfere with the same. So, the learned WA No.429/2008 - 3 - Single Judge rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. In the result, the Writ Appeal is also dismissed. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P. Bhavadasan, Judge. nm.