IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 MACA.No. 694 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.2208/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 -------------------------------------------- 1. VENUGOPAL, ILLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-18. 2. KALYANA SUNDARAM, ILLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-18. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT IN OP(MV) ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMUNICATIONS, TRANSMISSION PROJECT, 38/265-D,2ND FLOOR, CHITTOOR ROAD, COCHIN-11. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-16. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN R2 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.694 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Owner of a motor vehicle against whom an award for payment of compensation for property damages was passed is the appellant. Original Petition was filed by the General Manager, Department of Telecommunications, Transmission Project claiming compensation on account of the damages sustained to the car bearing registration No.KL-7/A-7876. The case of the first respondent was that when his vehicle was parked on Marine Drive Parking Ground a mini lorry driven by the second appellant came in a rash or negligent manner came and hit against the rear side of the car causing damages. Owner and driver of the mini lorry did not appear and contest the matter. Insurer alone contested the matter. Insurer raised a contention that the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs.6,000/- in view of the terms and conditions of the policy. Tribunal found that the first respondent/petitioner was entitled to get an amount of Rs.48,017/- as damages. Insurance company was directed to Rs.6,000/- and the appellant was directed to pay the balance amount. Challenging that part of the award by which the appellant was directed to pay damages this appeal is filed. 2. The only question arising for consideration in this appeal is whether MACA No.694/2007 2 an opportunity is to be given to the appellant to contest the matter on merits. Though the appellant raised a contention of non-service of notice, I am not inclined to accept that contention. The appellant made an attempt before the Tribunal to get the exparte award set aside but that petition was dismissed. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the matter, I am of the view that one more opportunity can be afforded to the appellant to contest the matter on merits. Learned counsel for the Telecommunications Department submitted that the attempt of the appellant is to protract the matter and in the meantime he may alienate the property owned by him. It is submitted that in case the appellant alienates the property owned by him, first respondent will not be in a position to recover the damages. So it is only just and proper that while allowing the appellant to contest the matter on merits the appellant is directed not to alienate the immovable properties owned by him. It is also necessary to fix a time limit for the disposal of the Original Petition. If the respondent had already withdrawn the amount deposited by the insurer the same need not be repaid but while passing the fresh award that amount shall be given credit. In the result, appeal is allowed. Award passed by the Tribunal on 3.6.2005 is hereby set aside. Case is remanded. Appellant will be given an opportunity to file his objections as well as adduce evident. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 26.3.2008. There will be a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the MACA No.694/2007 3 Original Petition within a period of six months from the date of first appearance of parties. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. cks