IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP (MACT).No. 3659 of 2011(O) ----------------------------- OPMV.2457, 2296, 2372 & 2373/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ---------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ERNAKULAM NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, "SHARANYA" HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. LILLY THOMAS, W/O. THOMAS, CHITTEZHATHU HOUSE, THYKOODAM VYTTILA.P.O., KOCHI-682 019. 2. GRACY JOHN, W/O. JOHN, CHANNATHIL HOUSE, THYKOODAM, VYTTILA.P.O.,KOCHI-682 019. 3. LINU THOMAS(MINOR) D/O. THOMAS, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER THOMAS, CHITTEZHATHU HOUSE, THYKOODAM, VYTTILA.P.O., KOCHI-682 019. 4. RANI JOSEPH, W/O. JOSEPH, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUS, SOUTH KADAVANTHARA, GIRINAGAR, KADAVNATHARA.P.O., KOCHI-682 020. 5. P.G. JOSEPH, S/O. P.L.GEORGE, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, 50/1357, SOUTH GIRINAGAR, KADAVANTHARA.P.O., KOCHI-682 020. THIS OP (MACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OP(MAC) NO.3659/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED 03-09-2008 IN O.P.MV 2296, 2372,2373 AND 2457 OF 2004 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 11-11-2010 IN I.A.NOS. 1198 & 1199 OF 2010 IN OPMV 2296 OF 2004 I.A. NOS. 1204 & 1207 OF 2010 IN OPMV 2372 OF 2004 I.A. NOS. 1193, 1194 & 5006 OF 2010 IN OPMV 2373 OF 2004 AND I.A. NOS. 1195, 1196, 5003 AND 2335 OF 2010 IN O.P.MV 2457 OF 2004 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- O.P(MAC) No. 3659 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P2 order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner to set aside a common award passed in four claim petitions is under challenge in this original petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. Respondents 1 to 4 herein as claimants filed OP(MV) Nos. 2457, 2296, 2372, 2373 of 2004 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them in a motor accident. They were traveling in a motor car belonging to the fifth respondent which was insured by the petitioner herein. They sustained injuries when the said motor vehicle collided with another motor vehicle. The petitioner did not enter appearance in the claim petitions or file a written statement. The insurer of the offending vehicle entered appearance and filed a written statement. By Ext.P1 award passed on 3.9.2008 the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that the accident happened as a result of the negligent O.P(MAC) No. 3659 of 2011 -2- driving of the motor vehicle belonging to the fifth respondent. In that view of the matter the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that the fifth respondent herein and the insurer of the motor car namely the petitioner herein, are liable to pay the compensation. Long afterwards, the petitioner filed separate applications in the claim petitions to set aside the award contending that under the policy issued by it in respect of the motor car belonging to the fifth respondent, passengers traveling in the motor car namely gratuitous passengers are not covered and the policy covered only third party risks. The petitioner also filed separate applications to condone the delay of 503 days in filing the applications to have the award set aside. By the order impugned, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed all the applications. Hence this original petition. 3. I heard Sri.Mathews Jacob, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that it had received summons from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. It did not however enter appearance or file a written statement. An award was passed against the petitioner and the owner of the motor car. Even thereafter the O.P(MAC) No. 3659 of 2011 -3- petitioner waited for 503 days to move the Tribunal to have the award set aside. In the affidavit filed in support of the applications the only ground stated was that though a lawyer had been engaged he did not file a written statement. The name of the lawyer engaged by the petitioner was however not disclosed to the Tribunal. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal took the view that the case put forwarded by the petitioner cannot be believed. In my opinion, on the admitted facts the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse. Even in this writ petition the identity of the lawyer stated to have been engaged by the insurer is not set out. The claim petition was filed in the year 2004. It was pending for nearly four years. As an insurer who is well versed with the conduct of cases in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the petitioner should have enquired about the progress made in the cases. Such being the situation no interference is called for with the impugned order. The original petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Rkc //true copy// PA to Judge.