IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 473 of 2005() --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/06/2004 IN IA.4061,4062/2003 IN OPMV.1167/1998 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER. -------------------------------------- ABDURAHIMAN, S/O.AHAMMED HAJI, NOORAMUCHI HOUSE, VALLUVAMBRAM, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS. ------------------------------------------------ 1. T.P.MANOJ, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, BALAKRISHNA BAHVAN, PUTHENKODE, RAMANATTUKARA. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO, BRANCH OFFICE FEROKE, PUTHERI BUILDING, FEROKE. 3. SHOUKATH, S./O.MAMMOOTTY, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALEMAD EDAKKARA. 4. NOORAMUCHI AHAMMED HAJI, VALLUVAMBRAM PO MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE,KORAMBAYIL ARCADE, PANDIKKAD ROAD, MANJERI. ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH FOR R5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 473 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in I.A.4061/03 and 4062/03 in O.P.(MV)1167/98. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident in the forearm and had a clavicle fracture. He did not take steps to serve notice on the 2nd respondent and it was dismissed for default. Then with a delay of two years and three months he filed an application for restoration. The Tribunal found that there are no valid grounds and it dismissed the same. It is against that decision, the present appeal is preferred. 2. The reason attributed is that the claimant was abroad and therefore he was not in a position to give proper instructions to the lawyer to take steps. It is true that a litigant should be vigilant. But it is a well settled principle that as far as possible the broad principles of natural justice demands that the matter should be heard on merits unless M.A.C.A. 473 OF 2005 -:2:- there is gross negligence or grave misconduct. There was a legitimate reason for the claimant because he was away from the country. Therefore I am inclined to grant him an opportunity. At the same time it is to be made clear that if the award is passed ultimately the delay caused in filing the application, the delay caused in filing the appeal etc. has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and interest has to be negatived for those periods. Therefore I set aside the order of the Court below and remit the case back to the trial court for fresh disposal after affording an opportunity to the claimant to take notice to the 2nd respondent and after completing service, allow them to let in evidence in support of his contentions. For the said purpose the O.P. is restored to file and the order in I.A.Nos.4061 and 4062 of 2003 stand set aside. The appellant and the respondents are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.9.2008. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-