IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 OP (MACT).No. 2891 of 2011(O) ----------------------------- OPMV.334/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER ------------- GIJO V.ABRAHAM, VLAKATHU HOUSE,PARAMPUZHA P.O.,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SAJIMOL.P.M, VATTAKOTTA HOUSE,MARIYATHURUTHU P.O., KOTTAYAM 686027 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD; KOTTAYAM 686 001. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE THIS OP (MACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(MAC) No. 2891/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS DATED 15.3.2007 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26.7.2008 EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26.7.2008 EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.5.2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE vps P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- O.P.(MAC) No. 2891 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the first respondent in O.P.(MV) No.334 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The said claim petition was filed by the first respondent herein seeking compensation for the death of her husband in a motor accident that took place on 4.5.2003 involving a motor vehicle belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner received notice of the claim petition and entered appearance through counsel on 9.8.2004. He did not however file a written statement. An ex-parte award was passed against him on 18.6.2007. When the award was sought to be executed and notice of the Execution Petition was served on him, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 3292 of 2008 to set aside the ex-parte award accompanied by I.A.No.3319 of 2008 to condone the delay in filing the former application. By Ext.P4 order passed on 21.5.2011 the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed the application. Hence this Original Petition under article 227 of the constitution of India challenging Ext.P4 order and seeking a direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to try and dispose of O.P.(MV) No.334 of 2004 afresh after affording the petitioner an opportunity to file a written statement. 2. The petitioner had in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. OP(MAC) No.2891/2011 2 No.3292 of 2008 admitted the fact that he had entered appearance through counsel on receipt of summons in O.P.(MV) No.334 of 2004. However the case set out by him is that though the lawyer whom he had engaged had assured that he will take care of his interests, he did not file a written statement on his behalf and also left practice on appointment as Sales Tax Officer on 16.10.2005 and that thereupon an ex-parte award was passed against him on 18.6.2007. The petitioner has also stated that he came to know of the e-parte award only after he received notice of the Execution Petition on 19.6.2008 and that he ceased to be the owner of the motor bike on 9.9.1998 long before the accident took place. Similar averments are contained in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.3319 of 2008 to condone the delay in filing I.A. No.3292 of 2008. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that the explanation offered by the petitioner for not filing the written statement cannot be accepted. The applications were accordingly dismissed. In my opinion, the challenge to Ext.P4 order is without any merit. The petitioner had admittedly received notice of the claim petition and had entered appearance through counsel on 9.8.2004. Apart from alleging that the counsel did not file the written statement, the petitioner has no case that after 9.8.2004 when he entered OP(MAC) No.2891/2011 3 appearance through counsel, he had contacted his counsel for the purpose of filing a written statement or at least for the purpose of ensuring that the written statement has been filed on his behalf. It is evident from the conduct of the petitioner that for nearly four years he did not care to make enquiries about the case and it was only after he received notice of the Execution Petition that he made enquiries about the case. As rightly held by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the petitioner had a duty to make enquiries about his case and ascertain whether his counsel had taken steps to file a written statement in time. I therefore find no illegality in the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Original Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps