IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 OP (MACT).No. 1289 of 2010(O) ----------------------------- OPMV.71/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... PETITIONER ----------------- C.M.ABRAHAM, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.UNITED AGENCIES, MANALAM DAM P.O. PIN-678706,PALAKKAD DIST BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO SRI.K.C.VINCENT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ROY MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, MATTAMEL HOUSE, VELLILAPPALLY, RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O. RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM DIST-686001 2. RAVEENDRAN, PARASHERRY KARA HOUSE, KARINGAYAM P.O.,MANGALAM DAM P.O.PIN:678706, PALAKKAD DIST 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SHOBHA TSM COMPLE, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, PALAKKAD-678001 4. DY.TAHSILDAR (RR) ALATHUR PALAKKAD-678541 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI. THIS OP (MACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- O.P. (MACT) No.1289 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the registered owner of a lorry bearing registration No. KL9-Q-8790. The first respondent who was riding a bike met with an accident involving the said vehicle. He thereupon filed O.P.(M.V) No.71 of 2007 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala claiming compensation. The petitioner, the owner of the lorry and the driver of the lorry received notice, but they did not appear and contest the claim petition and were set ex parte. By Ext.P1 award passed on 4.4.2009, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred as a result of the negligence of the driver of the lorry. Since the driver did not appear and produce the licence, an adverse inference was drawn against him. The Tribunal accordingly held that there is a violation of the conditions of the policy, and therefore, though the vehicle was covered by valid policy of insurance, permitted the Insurer to recover the compensation paid by it from the petitioner with 9% interest from the date of deposit till realisation. The Insurer complied with the award and after payment initiated revenue recovery proceedings. Exts.P3 and P4 notices under sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 were served on the petitioner. At that stage, he filed Ext.P5 application to set aside the ex parte award in O.P.(MV) 2 No.71 of 2007 along with Ext.P6 application to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte award. This writ petition was thereafter filed seeking the following reliefs:- i) An appropriate order or any other appropriate direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 and P4 and to quash the same. ii) any other appropriate order or direction directing the MACT, Pala to dispose of Exts.P5 and P6 applications and further direct that pending such disposal, further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4 be kept in abeyance. iii) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. It is evident from Ext.P1 award that the petitioner had received summons in O.P.(M.V.) No.71/2007, but for reasons best known to him, he did not enter appearance and contest the claim petition. So long as Ext.P1 award stands, the petitioner cannot complain against the steps taken by the insurer to recover the compensation paid by it to the claimant. I, therefore, find no merit in the challenge to Exts.P3 and P4. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the ex parte award passed against him, his remedy lies in moving the 3 Tribunal to have the ex parte award set aside by filing an appropriate application and also by satisfactorily explaining the delay in filing the application. Exts.P5 and P6 applications were filed only in the last week of December, 2010, that too, after the revenue recovery notices were served on the petitioner. In such circumstances, the only relief that can be granted to the petitioner is to direct the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala to consider Exts.P5 and P6 petitions on the merits and pass orders thereon after notice to the parties to the claim petition, expeditiously. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala to consider Exts.P5 and P6 applications filed by the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.71 of 2007 and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously and in any event within four months from today. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.