IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11511 of 2007(U) ---------------------------------------- (I.A.NO.3273/06 IN O.P.(MV) 4027/95 OF THE MACT VADAKARA) PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- RASHID (MINOR), REP. BY FATHER IBRAHIM, VARATTADI HOUSE,NOCHAD P.O.,NADUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE DISRICT (FATHER IBRAHIM IS REPRESENTING THE MINOR RASHID FROM TRIBUNAL ITSELF) BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. A.T.ASHRAF, S/O.AMMOOTTY,ADAVIL HOUSE, KAVIL P.O.,NADUVANNUR,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. T.C.BALAN, S/O.KUNHIRMANAN, THAYATTUMMAL HOUSE, KAVUMTHARA P.O., KAVIL,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, SEEMA TOWERS, BANK ROAD,CALICUT. R3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.11511/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN IA.NO.1796/03 AND I.A.NO.1797 OF 2003. P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/4/2001 IN O.P.(M.V)NO.4027 OF 95. P3 COPY OF THE PETITION TO SET ASIDE EXT.P2 ORDER ALONG WITH ADVOCATE CLEARK'S AFFIDAVIT, WITH THE TRIBUNAL ENDORSMENT THEREON DATED 18/8/2006. P4 COPY OF THE EXT.P3 ORDER ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER (MINOR) DATED 23/8/06. P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DISMISSING EXT.P4 PETITION AS NOT PRESSED. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 11511 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the claimant in O.P. (M.V.) No.4027/1995 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadakara, in which he claimed compensation for injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. According to the petitioner, since the Advocate appearing for him before the Tribunal stopped practice there was no representation for the petitioner on the date of posting of the O.P, the O.P. came to be dismissed for default. The petitioner caused to file two applications namely I.A. Nos.1797/2003 and 1796/2003 for restoration of the claim and for condonation of delay in filing the petition for restoration. Both were considered together and by Ext.P1 order, both were allowed on condition that the petitioner pays Rs.3,000/- as costs to the 3rd respondent-Insurance company. The petitioner did not pay the costs as directed within the time stipulated. The W.P.(C)No. 11511 of 2007 -2- petitioner filed I.A. No.3273/2006 for extension of time. By Ext.P5 order that application was dismissed as not pressed. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “1. Declare that the dismissal of the claim petition by way of order dated 6/4/2001 in O.P. (M.V.)No.4027 of 95 for default by way of Ext.P2 order for the absence of the counsel and the petitioner is illegal. 2. Restore O.P. (M.V.) No.4027 of 95 of M.A.C.T. Vadakara to file and direct the M.A.C.T., Vadakara to consider it and pass an award on merit after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. 3. Set aside Ext.P1 and P2 orders and direct the Tribunal to allow applications by way of I.A.No.1796 of 2003 and 1797 of 2003 without insisting for cost. 4. Issue a direction to the tribunal to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 petition. 5. Issue a direction to the Tribunal to grant some more time to receive the cost ordered in allowing I.A. No.1796 of 2003 and I.A. No.1797 of 2003.” I find that the petitioner has been at default at every stage of the proceedings. He did not properly follow up his claim petition before the Tribunal and the same happened to be dismissed for default. He filed application for restoration along with application to condone delay. That was allowed on terms. The petitioner did not comply with W.P.(C)No. 11511 of 2007 -3- the terms. The petitioner filed an application seeking extension of time to pay the costs. When the said I.A. came up, the petition is seen dismissed as not pressed. Of course, the petitioner contends that it was not 'not pressed' as stated in the order. If that was so, the petitioner's remedy lies in seeking review of Ext.P5 order. As it stands now, I do not find anything wrong with the impugned orders. In the particular circumstances, the Tribunal could not have done anything better. Therefore I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner who was consistently at fault in prosecuting his claim and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/