IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 12065 of 2008(J) -------------------------- O.P(MV) NO.1490/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ JAYAN VELAYUDHAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, PONNURICKAL HOUSE, THRIKKARIYOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1. ABDUL KAREEM, S/O. KAREEM, 64/2449, MADHAIYA HOUSE, SASTHA TEMPLE ROAD, KOCHI-682 011. 2. AJI A.S., S/O. SANKARAN, ALAPPATTU HOUSE, THRIKKARIYOOR, THANKALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, STATUE JUNCTION, TRIPUNITHURA-682 301. 4. ABOOBACKER, S/O. ALI, PALLIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PADAMUGAL,THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI-12. BY ADV. SMT. SARAH SALVY - R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 12065/ 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION IN O.P(MV) NO.1490/2005 ON THE FILE OF M.A.C.T, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO. KL7/Z 3876 DATED 7/06/2006. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17/01/2005. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF I.A. 2411/2007 ALONG WITH ITS ORDER DATED 20/07/2007. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.2410/2007 ALONG WITH ITS ORDER DATED 20/07/2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... WP(C).No.12065 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging dismissal of I.A.2411 of 2007 and 2410 of 2007 in O.P(MV)1490 of 2005 on the file of MACT, Moovattupuzha. O.P(MV) 1490 of 2005 was filed claiming compensation for the injury sustained by petitioner in a motor accident. Notice on first respondent was not served. On 23.5.2007, MACT, on the failure of petitioner to take steps, passed an order rejecting the claim, as against first respondent. Petitioner filed Ext.P4 petition(IA 2411 of 2007) to review that order contending that notice could not be taken as petitioner was not aware of the change of address and therefore order dismissing the claim as against first respondent is to be reviewed. Ext.P5 petition(I.A.2310 of 2007) was filed along with an application for taking notice to respondents 1 and 4 by substituted service. MACT dismissed the petitions without a speaking order as follows:- “ No merits. Hence dismissed”. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and third respondent were heard. WP(C) 12065/2008 2 3. Third respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition, contending that petitioner is not entitled to any relief against respondents 1 and 2 and against third respondent also and on the failure of petitioner to take steps, the claim as against first respondent was rejected and there is no reason to interfere with the orders. 4. O.P(MV) 1490 of 2005 is yet to be disposed and petitioner is entitled to adduce evidence. The claim as against respondents 1 to 3 appears to be decided by learned Tribunal, on the failure of the petitioner to take steps to serve notice on first respondent. When I.A.2411 of 2007 was filed to review that order and along with the application, petition was filed for permission to take notice by substituted service, the tribunal was not justified in dismissing I.A.2411 of 2007. In such circumstances, the order dated 20.7.2007 dismissing I.A.2411 of 2007 is quashed. MACT is directed to consider the application on merits, after hearing the parties in accordance with law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-