IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 OP (MACT).No. 1209 of 2010(O) -------------------------------------------- [AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/10/2010 IN IA 506/2009 & 507/2009 IN OPMV.1300/2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- HASSAN, S/O.KUNHAMMEDKUTTY AGED 62 YEARS, PARAKKAL HOUSE P.O.KARULAI, NILAMBUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR, SMT.PRABHA R.MENON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SHUKKOOR,S/O.HUSSAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE, KARULAI P.O, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 679 344. 2. THE ORINTEL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE JASEELA COMPLEX, NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI – 676 121. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA), SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN. THIS OP (MACT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P(MAC).NO.1209/2010-O: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION DTD. 17/05/2003 IN O.P(MV).1300/2003. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 13/12/2007 IN OP(MV)1300/2003. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DTD. 08/10/2010 IN I.A. 506 & 507/2009 IN O.P (MV) 1300/2003. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- O.P.(MAC) No.1209 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No.1300 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The respondents are the opposite parties therein. The claim petition stood posted for evidence on 13.12.2007. On that day, neither the petitioner nor his counsel were present. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the claim petition for default by Ext.P2 order dated 13.12.2007. More than a year later, the petitioner filed I.A.No.507 of 2009 to set aside the order dismissing the claim petition for default along with I.A.No.506 of 2009 to condone the delay in filing that application. By Ext.P3 order passed on 8.10.2010, the Tribunal dismissed both the applications. Hence this writ petition challenging Exts.P2 and P3 orders. 2. The petitioner was aged 55 years as on the date on which he filed the claim petition. Ext.P1 claim petition discloses that in the accident he had suffered a fracture on his right leg. The petitioner has also averred that though the owner and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident did not appear and were set ex parte by the Tribunal, the vehicle involved in the accident was covered by a O.P.(MAC) No.1209OF 2010 2 valid policy of insurance. The petitioner has also stated that as a result of the accident, he is permanently disabled and is not in a position to earn his livelihood as a Coolie. 3. I heard Sri.M.Krishna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.George Cherian (Thiruvalla), the learned counsel appearing for the Insurer. Though the first respondent has been served, he has not chosen to enter appearance. A reading of Ext.P1 claim petition shows that the petitioner had suffered injuries in the accident. The insurer does not dispute the fact that the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident or the fact that the vehicle is covered by a valid policy of insurance. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the application to set aside the order dismissing the claim petition for default after condoning the delay in filing the application, subject to the condition that during the period from 13.7.2007 till the date of restoration of the claim petition, the petitioner will not be entitled to interest on the compensation, if any, awarded. I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash Exts.P2 and P3 and restore O.P.(M.V.) No.1300 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, O.P.(MAC) No.1209OF 2010 3 Manjeri shall try and dispose of the claim petition expeditiously and in any event within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that during the period from 13.7.2007 till today, the petitioner will not be entitled to interest on the compensation, if any, awarded to him. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.