IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 15598 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KURIAN THOMAS, S/O. KURIAN, AGED 78 YEARS, NAIKALATH HOUSE, PULLAMKUNNU, MALAMPUZHA P.O., PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR EAST FORT COMPLEX, FORT MAIDAN, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.JOE KALLIATH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).15598/2009 ....................... Dated this the 14th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Vehicle belonging to the petitioner was involved in a motor accident and this led to a claim petition as O.P.(MV). No.967/2000 before the MACT, Palakkad. According to the petitioner, vehicle was having a valid insurance coverage provided by the respondent. Though served, petitioner did not appear and according to him this was because he was laid up due to rheumatic arthritis and neurological ailments. Ultimately, an award was passed on 30.4.2005 and the said award was ex parte in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Thereafter I.A.Nos.3287/2005, 3300/2005 and 3288/2005 were filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay and also to get the ex parte award set aside. Yet another application was filed for accepting the belated application. Tribunal by Ext.P5 order rejected the application for condonation of delay and it is challenging the same that the writ petition has been filed. 2. I heard Mr.Jacob Sebastian, learned counsel for the W.P.(C).15598/09 2 petitioner and Mr. Joe Kalliath appearing for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that no material has been produced by the petitioner to demonstrate sufficient cause for his non appearance while he was set ex parte during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal. His attempt was only to show that there was sufficient cause for his non appearance at the time of passing the ex parte award on 30.4.2005. This contention is correct. But I take note of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondent that the Insurance Company had already deposited the award amount and the present dispute, if at all permitted to be tried again, would only be a one between the owner and the insurer. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P5 shall stand set aside and I.A.Nos.3287/2005, 3288/2005 and 3300/2005 in O.P. (MV).967/2000 on the files of the MACT, Palakkad, shall stand allowed on condition that the petitioner pays an W.P.(C).15598/09 3 amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost to the Insurance Company within four weeks from today. If the cost is paid, the award shall stand set aside and the Tribunal shall pass a revised order in so far as the liability of the owner is concerned, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Cost shall be deposited before the Tribunal and the deposit shall be disbursed to a representative of the respondent. I make it clear that the revised award shall not have an impact on the award which has already been passed in favour of the claimants. If costs are not paid, the impugned orders shall stand affirmed Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs