IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 OP (MACT).No. 60 of 2010(O) --------------------------- PETITIONERS --------------------- HANIL, S/O. DEVASSY, PALLIPPADAN HOUSE, CHAMBANNOORKARA, ANGAMALY. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAI MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MUKUNDAN, S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, KORATTIYAPPILLY HOUSE, MANICKAMANGALAM, KALADY VILLAGE. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BR. OFFICE, R.S.ROAD, ALUVA. 3. DINESHKUMAR, CHEMGANATTU HOUSE, AYYAMPUZHA P.O., AMALAPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN FOR R2 THIS OP (MACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- O.P.(MACT) No. 60 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was the first respondent in O.P.(MV) No.989 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Clams Tribunal, Perumbavoor. Inspite of service of notice and paper publication, the petitioner and the second respondent herein who are the driver and owner respectively of the vehicle involved in the accident did not appear and contest the claim petition. The vehicle driven by the petitioner was covered by a valid policy of insurance. By Ext.P2 award passed on 8.1.2010, the Tribunal directed the insurer to pay the amount of compensation awarded by it to the claimant and permitted the insurer to recover the same from the driver and owner of the the vehicle jointly and severally. The petitioner was held liable as he did not produce a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not possess a valid driving licence for the reason that he did not respond to the application filed by the insurer as I.A.No.3180/2005 wherein the insurer had sought a direction to the driver and owner of the vehicle, to produce the driving licence, if any, held by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed Ext.P4 application to set aside ex parte award passed against him along with Ext.P5 application to condone the delay O.P.(MACT) 60/2010 2 in filing Ext.P4 petition. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor to consider Exts.P4 and P5 petitions without delay. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, to take note of Ext.P1, the driving licence which he possessed during the relevant period. 2. The question whether Ext.P2 ex parte award passed against the petitioner should be set aside or not after condoning the delay in filing the application to set aside the award is primarily a matter to be considered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Ext.P2 award was passed on 8.1.2010. The petitioner has filed Ext.P4 application to set aside the ex parte award along with Ext.P5 application to condone the delay in filing the same. The question of considering the petitioner's request to set aside the ex parte award would arise only if the delay in filing the said application is condoned. The petitioner has asserted in the writ petition that on the day on which the accident took place, he had a valid driving licence. Reliance is placed on Ext.P1 driving licence to substantiate that plea. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal should consider the request made by the petitioner in Exts.P4 and P5 and pass orders O.P.(MACT) 60/2010 3 thereon expeditiously. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor to consider Exts.P4 and P5 petitions in accordance with law, after notice to the petitioner and respondents, expeditiously and in any event within four months from today. Until orders are passed on Exts.P4 and P5 petitions, the second respondent shall keep in abeyance the steps, if any, taken by them to recover the award amount from the petitioner. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.