IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2011 / 12TH ASWINA 1933 OP (MACT).No. 3180 of 2011(O) --------------------------------------------- OPMV.1796/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------ VINCENT, S/O.YOHANAN, SARGAM, VELAVOOR, KOLIYAKODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONERS/APPLICANT & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. HARIHARAN NAIR, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, TC - 12/2579, VAILOORKONATHU VEEDU, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 003. 2. RADHAMONI, W/O.RAJU, RAILWAY PURAMBOKE, PANAMOODU VILAKOM, KAITHAMUKKU, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 035. 3. RAJU, S/O.GOPALAN, RAILWAY PURAMBOKE, KAITHAMUKKU, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 035. THIS OP (MACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss OP(MAC) NO.3180/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION IN OP(MV) 1796/2003 DTD. 4.11.2003. P2:- COPY OF THE IA. 289/2009 FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. P3:- COPY OF THE IA 290/2009, FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA. 290/09 IN OP(MV) 1796/2003 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 6.9.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- O.P. (MAC) No.3180 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P4 order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram dismissing the application filed by the petitioner to set aside an award passed ex parte and the application to condone the delay in filing that application are under challenge in this original petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2. The petitioner was the first respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No.1796 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. In the said claim petition, wherein the first respondent herein who sustained injuries in a motor accident had claimed payment of the sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation, an ex parte award was passed on 31.5.2008. One year later, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 application (I.A.No.289 of 2009) to set aside the ex parte award accompanied by Ext.P3 application (I.A.No.290 of 2009) to condone the delay of 265 days in filing the former application. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, he stated that during the year 2003-2004, he was away in New Delhi and therefore he did not receive notice on the claim petition and was unaware of the case till he received notice of the execution petition. By the impugned order, the O.P.(MAC) No.3180 of 2011 2 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that the petitioner had, after receipt of summons in the claim petition, entered appearance through Sri.G.Jayakumar and therefore the case set out by him cannot be accepted. The Tribunal also held that though he was set ex parte on 24.3.2004 since he did not file a written statement, the award was passed only on 31.5.2008, long thereafter. 3. In my opinion, the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. The case set out by the petitioner in the applications filed by him was that he was unaware of the claim petition till he received notice of the execution petition. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has after perusing the records entered a categorical finding that the said plea is patently false for the reason that the petitioner had after receipt of summons from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal entered appearance through counsel and was thereafter set ex parte since he did not file a written statement. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was therefore perfectly right in dismissing the applications. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------------- O.P. (MAC) No.3180 of 2011 JUDGMENT Dated:- 4th October, 2011 --------------------------------------