IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 38179 of 2003(T) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. M. MADHUSOODHANAN, S/O.THANKAPPAN NAIR, MATHAYIL HOUSE, KAITHARAM, NORTH PARAVUR. 2. RAJEEV, S/O.THANKAPPAN NAIR, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.SONIYA.M RESPONDENT: ------------------ 1. J. RADHIKAKUMARI, W/O.NARAYANANL NAMBIAR, RAMA NILAYAM, NANDYATTUKUNNAM, NORTH PRAVUR. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, NORTH NADA, KODUNGALLUR. 3. THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNA, NORTH PARAVUR. ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXT: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/7/2003 IN I.A.NO.1213/2002 IN O.P.(MV).NO.525/97 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT, NORTH PARAVUR. TRUE COPY HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO. 38179 OF 2003 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside Ext.P1 order dated 25/7/2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur and to direct the 3rd respondent to decide OP(MV).No.525/1997 on merits within a time limit to be specified by this Court. 2. Petitioners in the writ petition are respondents 1 and 2 in OP (MV).No.525/1997. The lst petitioner herein is the owner of the taxi car which was involved in an accident and the 2nd petitioner is the driver. O.P. (MV) was filed by the lst respondent claiming compensation. Petitioners, who are respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P.(MV), received summons and they entered appearance through their counsel. Though the Tribunal granted adjournments on several occasions for filing written statement at the request of the petitioners, they did not file written statement and later ceased to -2- WP(C).No.38179/2003 appear. They were declared ex parte. The Insurance Company contested the original petition. The Tribunal passed an award dated 15/10/2001. allowing the claimant to realise `9170/- with interest at 9% per annum with proportionate costs from respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount. The company was also permitted to recover the said amount from the lst respondent in OP(MV), who is the lst petitioner herein. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the driver had no licence to ply the vehicle at the relevant time. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to recover the award amount from the owner of the vehicle. Petitioners did not choose to file an appeal challenging the award. Petitioners filed a petition for setting aside the ex parte decree. There was a delay of 292 days in filing the said petition. Therefore, they filed I.A.No.1213/2002 for condoning the delay of 292 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree. Petitioners contended that they came to know about the ex parte -3- WP(C).No.38179/2003 decree only when they received notice in E.P.No.37/2002 filed by the Insurance Company seeking to recover the award amount deposited in the case. The Tribunal considered the matter elaborately and passed Ext.P1 order. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, rightly held that the petitioners have failed to explain the reason for condoning the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The Tribunal also found that there is no bona fides in filing the petition for condoning the delay and that they have no consistent case. In fact the petitioners entered appearance in the OP(MV) on receipt of summons. They cannot be heard to say that they have no information about the passing of the decree. Both the petitioners were parties to OP(MV) No.525/1997, contested the matter for some time and subsequently failed to appear. In such circumstances, they cannot be heard to say that they have no knowledge or information about the decree and they came to know about the same only when they received notice in the execution -4- WP(C).No.38179/2003 petition. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order of the Tribunal dismissing the application for condonation of delay is not liable to be interfered with in the writ proceedings. Writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.