IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 MACA.No. 2783 of 2009 ----------------------- OPMV.356/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/: PETITIONER ------------------------ ROY, S/O.THOMAS, KEERAMPLAYIL HOUSE, VENDUVAZHI KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. LAL, S/O.ELDHO, KULAPPURAM HOUSE, ANGADI KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. DEVASSIYA VARKY, PULICKAL HOUSE, PIDAVOPOPR, POTHANICADU. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, PB NO.50, ELENGICAL PLAZA, CHURCH VIEW JUNCTION, KOTHAMANGALAM. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== M.A.C.A. NO. 2783 OF 2009 ============================ Dated this the 24th day of March 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The appellant was involved in a road traffic accident in the year 2002. He instituted a petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal seeking compensation from the owner, driver and Insurer of the alleged offending vehicle. But on the day when the case was taken up for consideration, the appellant was absent and, therefore, the claim petition was dismissed by award dated February 17, 2006. 2. After about four months, the appellant filed an interlocutory application as I.A.No. 2140/2006 to restore the claim petition. The Tribunal dismissed the said application MACA 2783/2009 2 holding that sufficient cause had not been shown by the appellant to set aside the order of dismissal. This appeal is directed against the above orders passed by the Tribunal. 3. While dismissing the restoration application, the Tribunal noticed that the appellant had failed to produce any document in support of his case though several opportunities were given to him. In fact, on an application filed by the appellant, the case was adjourned by the Tribunal in order to enable the appellant to produce certain documents. But on the day when the case was posted for trial, the appellant was absent. No documents were produced also. It was for that reason the Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition. 4. Still further, the Tribunal noticed that the restoration application was filed beyond the period of limitation. The appellant had not even filed a petition to condone the delay. Having perused the impugned orders, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. There is yet another aspect of the matter. This appeal has been filed by the appellant with a delay of 679 days. The conduct of the appellant indicates how casual and indifferent he MACA 2783/2009 3 has been in prosecuting the case throughout. We have of course considered the delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated above, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant does not deserve any leniency or indulgence. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE