IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 25353 of 2006(R) -------------------------- OPMV.1627/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY (I.A.NO.1003/2003 IN I.A.NO.5722/2005) .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- PRADEESH P.V., S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 26 YEARS, COOLIE, PAICHIYIL, PILATHARA, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM DESOM, KANNOOR. BY ADV. MR.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. PREMADASAN PARATHI, S/O. PUTHIYA VEETTIL KRISHNAN, NEAR ARATHIL SCHOOL, NAREEKAMVALLI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. PARATHI DAMODARAN, S/O. KUNHAPPA, NEAR KARTHAVULLA'S SHOP, KADANNAPPALLY P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MARINA SHOPPING CENTRE, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, TALIPARAMBA-670 141. 4. MR. ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O. ABOOBACKER, ODOL HOUSE, PAYYANUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. MR.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN R3 BY MR.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.P.JACOB MATHEW. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.25353/2006 R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION IN OP(MV) NO1627/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P2: COPIES OF I.A.NO.1003/2003 IN O.P.(MV) NO.1627/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY AND THE ORDER PASSED ON THE SAME. P3: COPIES OF THE PETITION IA.NO.5722/2005 IN OP(MV) NO.1627/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY AND THE ORDER PASSED ON THE SAME. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25353 of 2006 - R --------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To call for the records leading up to Exts.P2 and P3 and quash the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalaserry on Exts.P2 and P3 applications. ii) To allow I.A.Nos.1033/2003 and 5722/2005 in O.P.(MV)1627/97 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery to take back O.P.(MV) 1627/97 on the file and dispose of the same in accordance with law.” 2. Petitioner is the claimant in O.P.(MV).No.1627 of 1997 on the file of the MACT, Thalassery. The claim petition was dismissed on 17.9.2002, in view of the default of the petitioner to take steps. A petition for restoration was filed after considerable delay of 458 days. No separate application for condonation of delay was filed nor any reasons stated in the petition for condoning the delay. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an W.P.(C).No.25353 of 2006 - R 2 application to condone the delay. Ext.P3 is the copy of that application. Learned Judge, MACT, not being satisfied with the cause shown for condoning the delay, dismissed the restoration application. Correctness of that petition is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Notice being given the third respondent, insurer has entered appearance. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the third respondent. 4. No justifiable ground has been made out for condoning the long delay is the submission of the learned counsel for the insurer contending that interference with the order of the court below, in the facts of the case, is not called for. There was no wilful latches or default on the part of the petitioner for the delay and it happened on account of causes beyond his control is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Whatever that be, taking note that no specific cause was shown for the long delay in the application, and also the dismissal was on account of the reason of default on the part of the petitioner in taking steps W.P.(C).No.25353 of 2006 - R 3 against respondents 1 to 4, I find that indulgence in favour of the petitioner can be granted only on terms. The application for restoration shall stand allowed in reversal of the order of the MACT, Thalassery, subject to payment of Rs.750/- to the third respondent. Cost ordered shall be paid to the counsel appearing for the third respondent before this Court within ten days from the date of this judgment. If cost is not paid, within the stipulated time as directed, the writ petition shall stand dismissed without any further orders. The writ petition is disposed of as above. For report, post after two weeks. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-