IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 1342 of 2004(D) -------------------------- OP(MV) NO.391/1995 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ---------------------- JOSE M.S., AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. SEBASTIAN, MADATHIKKUNNEL HOUSE, KAVUMKARA KARA, MARKET P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR M.R., MUTHANGASSERY HOUSE, KUTHUKUZHY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. SAJEEV S/O. CHELLAPPAN, KURUPPAMPARAMBIL, MALAYINKEEZHU, KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No. 1342/2004 ORDER ON I.A. NO.3082 OF 2004 IN M.A.C.A.No. 1342 OF 2004 DISMISSED SD/- 26/08/2008 M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1342 OF 2004 --------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, in IA No.4129/03 in OP(MV) 391/95. The appellant is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The accident took place on 7.8.92 and the Tribunal passed the award on 13.6.96. The Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount and get it reimbursed from the appellant as there was breach of policy conditions. The appellant did not contest the case before the Tribunal. In 2003, i.e. almost after 7 years, an application has been filed to set aside the award on the ground that though he had received the notice he was in a stage of intoxication and therefore could not contest the case properly. 2. A perusal of the detailed order written by the Tribunal would show that the appellant had received notice in the Motor Accident Claims Appeal case and thereafter had received notice on all other matters as well. He pretends that he knew about the award only on receipt of notice in IA 945/03. He would submit that he knew about the award only on receipt of notice on 13.6.96. He has also admitted that he received the notice of application for compensation earlier. 3. The case attempted to be projected is that he was a chronic drunkard and was undergoing treatment for deaddiction and was not aware MACA No. 1342/04 2 of the seriousness or consequences of the same and therefore he must be given an opportunity. He would even depose that the notice was served to him from the arrack shop. A person may get intoxicated. But the toxicity of intoxication would vanish within sometime and if one does not allow such to happen, then one has to blame himself for the same. The Tribunal having passed an award in 1996 with a right to the Insurance Company to recover the amount, the appellant should have been careful. I am conscious of the fact that the broad principles of natural justice always demand a fair opportunity of being heard. But equally it is a settled principle that if one is guilty of gross negligence or grave misconduct, such an indulgence cannot be shown. I feel this is a classical case where there is gross negligence and grave misconduct and by misusing the judicial discretion it will only result in harm to a successful litigant and helping a negligent litigant. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 1342/04 3