IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP (MACT).No. 799 of 2010(O) ---------------------------- OPMV.976/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER ------------------ M.N.SURESH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.M.N.NARAYANAN, MUKKUNNAN HOUSE, PATHIRIPADAM.P.O., CHUNGATHARA (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.T.V.NEEMA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. YOUSEF ALI.N.K., S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, NECHIKADAN HOUSE, KARULAI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (DRIVER)- 679 329. 2. JOHNY, S/O.JACOB, THALATHITHEKKETIL HOUSE, PATHIRIPADAM.P.O., EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (RIDER CUM OWNER) - 679 331. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, JASEELA COMPLEX, NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI (INSURER).-676 121. 4. C.P.MUJEEB, S/O.MUSTHAFA, KOLARMANNIL HOUSE, KARULAI.P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 679 329. 5. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., A.M.BUILDING, HOSPITAL ROAD, NILAMBUR (INSURER)-679 329. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP FOR R5 THIS OP (MACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- O.P (MAC) No.799 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No.976 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Manjeri. The respondents are the respondents therein. The motor bike of which the petitioner was the pillion rider collided with another bike on 25.11.2004 and in the said accident, the petitioner suffered injuries. The claim petition was filed seeking the sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation from the owner and insurer of the motor bike of which the petitioner was the pillion rider and the owner-cum-driver and insurer of the offending vehicle. The owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle as also the owner of the bike of which the petitioner was the pillion rider did not appear and contest the claim petition, and were set ex parte. The insurers of the two vehicles entered appearance through counsel. The claim petition stood posted for trial on 15.6.2009 and on that day, on the short ground that the petitioner was absent and no application for adjournment was made on his behalf, the claim petition was dismissed for default. The petitioner thereafter preferred Ext.P3 petition (I.A.No.1553 of 2010) to set aside the order dismissing the claim petition for default. The said application O.P.(MAC) No.799 of 2010 2 was filed on 17.6.2010, two days after Ext.P1 order was passed. But it was dismissed by Ext.P2 order passed on 25.9.2010 on the ground that the petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting his claim for compensation. Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P2. 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Though respondents 1, 2 and 4 are the owner and the driver of the vehicles involved in the accident have not been served, in view of the fact that they were absent and were set ex parte by the Tribunal, I do not deem it necessary to issue notice to and hear them. A copy of the claim petition which was made available to me by the learned counsel for the petitioner discloses that the petitioner had claimed compensation of Rs.20,000/- in respect of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that took place on 25.11.2004. Though the insurers of two vehicles had entered appearance and filed a written statement, the factum of accident is not disputed. The only question is whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The insurers have no case that the vehicles were not validly insured. In such circumstances, as the accident is not disputed and the two vehicles were admittedly insured with the respective insurers, I am of the opinion that the O.P.(MAC) No.799 of 2010 3 petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to have the claim petition decided on the merits. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner was not ready to proceed with the trial on the appointed day, I am of the opinion that no interest need be paid to him on the amount of compensation, if any, awarded during the period from 15.6.2009 till this day. I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P2 and restore O.P.(M.V.) No.976 of 2005 to the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The Tribunal shall proceed to try and dispose of the claim petition expeditiously and in any event within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that in the event of the claim petition being allowed, the claimant/petitioner will not be entitled to interest on the compensation, if any, awarded to him during the period from 15.6.2009 till this day. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.