IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 529 of 2008(V) --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN MJC.196/2004 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN MFA.281/1996 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------------ V.K.CHANDRAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.APPUKUTTY, ADIYODI, VADUVANKANDI HOUSE, AVATA AMSOM DESOM, P.O.KUTTOTH, QUILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. E.T.CHANDRAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O.PACHER, EDATHUMTHARAMMEL HOUSE, KALPATHUR, MEPPAYUR, QUILANDY TALUK, (OWNER OF KEH 3956 JEEP). 2. G.SURESHNATH, AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, KURUKKANKANDI HOUSE, MENHANIAM AMSOM DO DESOM, P.O.MEHANIAM, QUILANDY TALUK, DL.NO.3155/88, B.NO.1013/90, (DRIVER OF KEH 3956 JEEP). 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, P.B.NO.17, VALIMANNA BUILDING, (3RD FLOOR), MAIN ROAD, VADAKARA, (INSURER OF KEH 3956 JEEP). 4. S.BALAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O.KANNAN, MALAYIL HOUSE, CHERUVANNUR, MEPPAUR, KOYILANDY TALUK, (OWNER OF KEK 1321 JEEP) 5. RAJEEVAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, MALAYIL HOUSE, CHERUVANNUR P.O., KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST. 6. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., P.B.NO.27, SREENITHI BUILDING, NARAYANA NAGAR, VADAKARA-673 101, (INSURER OF KEK 1321 JEEP). BY SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR SRI.B.GBIDAN CHANDRAN SRI.JACOB MURIKAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVE COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- R.P.NO.529 OF 2008 and C.M.APPLN.NO.880 OF 2008 and M.J.C.NO.196 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008. O R D E R Koshy, J: The appellant/claimant lost his right hand in a motor accident, that occurred on 8.4.1992 at the age of 26. He claimed compensation of Rs. Five lakhs. He did not produce any disability certificate. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal including reimbursement, medical expenses, pain and sufferings etc was Rs.77,133/=. No compensation was awarded for disability in a multiplier method or in a scientific manner. In the appeal notice was ordered. Notice send to the driver of the vehicle was returned with the endorsement "absent". Therefore, the appeal was posted for defects. In view of the absence of the advocate appearing for the claimant, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and M.J.C was filed for restoring the appeal with a delay of 517 days. In normal circumstances, this much delay would not have been allowed by us. But, here we satisfied : 2 : that the claimant is not responsible for the delay. He entrusted the matter to the advocate for filing appeal. An appeal was filed. Thereafter when the appeal was posted, the advocate was not present. The appeal was dismissed for default and he was not informed about the same. When he came to know about it, he engaged another advocate for filing restoration application and that advocate was also failed to appear before the court when the case was posted. Hence, M.J.C was also dismissed. It is very unfortunate situation to a person who lost his right hand in a motor accident. The advocate ought to have proceeded with the matter. We only express the conduct of the advocates in such matters. Since they are not parties, we are not recommending disciplinary action by the Bar counsel against those advocates. However, for the laches on their part for the long delay, the contesting respondent/insurance company which was bound liable for paying amount, cannot also suffer. Therefore, they cannot be justified with the liability to pay interest from 31.3.2003, the date of dismissal of the appeal till today. We make it clear that claimant will be free to claim interest from the advocate s concerned for the respective delays in appropriate forums. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that delay in filing the : 3 : review petition as well as M.J.C is not due to the fault of the claimants. Delay is satisfactorily explained. For the reasons stated above, all the applications and petitions are allowed. M.F.A is to be heard on merit. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl