IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 373 of 2003 ----------------------------------- OPMV.838/1994 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------------ SIVAN, S/O NARAYANA PILLAI, PAREPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENGAMANADU. BY ADV. SRI.A.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------ 1. P.K.SHINY @ SAINABA, W/O.MUTHALIB, PALUPPALLATHU HOUSE, ULIYANNUR, ALUVA. 2. DHANESWARA PAI, KALAPARAMBATHU HOUSE, DEVARKADU DESOM, VARAPUZHA. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., PERUMBAVOOR BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH FOR R1 SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.373 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of June 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant who was allegedly involved in a road traffic accident instituted the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ernakulam in the year 1994. When the claim petition came up for consideration on September 24, 2001 the counsel for the claimant was absent. A request was made on behalf of the learned counsel for an adjournment. But the Tribunal declined the prayer and dismissed the claim petition. The said order is under challenge in this appeal. 2. The case of the claimant in brief was that he sustained certain injuries on his fingers while he was travelling in a bus which happened to hit against a tempo carrying coconut husk. Some bamboo sticks in the tempo happened to hit on the fingers of the claimant, he contended. (We will refer to the injuries in more detail a little later.) The appellant/claimant prayed that the owner, driver and the insurer of the bus be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal was not at all justified in dismissing the petition for the absence of the claimant and that too when a request was made for a short adjournment. He points out that the insurance company had filed its counter statement in the case only M.A.C.A.No.373 OF 2003 :: 2 :: three or four months prior to the passing of the impugned award. The attempt of the learned counsel appears to be to establish that there was no laches on the part of the appellant in prosecuting his case. 4. But it may be noticed that the appellant had preferred this appeal in the year 2003. Even after ordering notice to the respondents in the appeal, he had not taken any steps for quite sometime to serve notice. Further, the proceedings in this case will reveal that for the last seven years no effective steps have been taken by the appellant to bring up the appeal for hearing. In that view of the matter, we are not persuaded to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that he had been very diligent in prosecuting his case. Learned counsel submits that if an opportunity is given to the appellant he will be able to substantiate that serious handicap has been resulted because of the injuries. 5. It will be interesting to notice the following injuries as described by the appellant in the claim petition. Fracture on little and middle finger and incised wound on thumb of right hand. 6. Having carefully considered the entire aspects of the matter, we are not at all satisfied that the prayer for remand of the case to the Tribunal will be justified. M.A.C.A.No.373 OF 2003 :: 3 :: As mentioned earlier, the accident occurred in the year 1993. If the case is now remanded and that too for the purpose of assessing the damage or compensation for the injuries indicated above, it will not serve any purpose. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes