IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 MACA.No. 687 of 2006 ------------------------- OPMV.654/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT. ---------------------------------------------------- THE MANAGER DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR SC, KSRTC RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER.1 ------------------------------------- 1. BALAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 50 YEARS, MADATHINKAL HOUSE, MUNAMBAM, PALLIPPORT P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SUKUMARAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT KOPUZHA HOUSE, WEST OF OTTAPPANA JUNCTION, PALLIPPURAM PANCHAYATH VI WARD, PALLIPPURAM P.O. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ FOR R1 SRI.K.P.MAJEED FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 687 of 2006-B - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010 Judgment Basheer, J: This appeal is at the instance of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation which has suffered an ex parte award in a Claim Petition filed by respondent No.1 herein. As against a claim of Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation for the injuries sustained by respondent No.1, the Tribunal has passed an award in his favour in a sum of Rs.4,01,850/-. 2. Sri. Nandagopal Nambiar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the award is ex facie arbitrary and unsustainable not only for the reason that the finding of the Tribunal as regards negligence is erroneous but also since the claimant had not suffered any disability as a result of the accident as alleged by him. 3. We do not propose to deal with the above contention at this stage, particularly for the reason that the appellant had not contested the case. Admittedly, the appellant was served with notice. However for its own reasons, whether justifiable or not, it failed to appear and defend the case. In that view of the matter it will be futile on the part of the appellant now to contend before us that the award is illegal and unsustainable. Anyhow, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that appellant can be I : 2 : given an opportunity to defend the case on condition that it pays a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs to respondent No.1. 4. However, respondent No.1 shall be entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- deposited by the appellant before this Court as a condition precedent for grant of interim stay of execution of the award. 5. Therefore the impugned award is set aside and the case is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. If the cost of Rs.5,000/- is not paid to respondent No.1 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the order of remand shall stand vacated and the award will be restored. 6. It is made clear that it will be open to the appellant to adduce further evidence on its side. Similarly, respondent No.1 will also be entitled to adduce further evidence, if any, in support of his claim. The Tribunal shall dispose of the petition as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on June 29, 2010. A.K. Basheer Judge. P.Q. Barkath Ali an. Judge.