IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933 FAO.No. 362 of 2010() --------------------- OPMV.403/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER/CLAIMANT --------------------------------------------------------- P.JAYACHANDRAN, S/O.P.KRISHNAN, MUNDUPARAMBA AMSOM, MUNDUPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SANTHOSH P., S/O.P.VASU, POOLATHODI HOUSE, CHERATTUKUZHI, KOTTAPADI, P.O.MALAPPURAM. 2. SHYNI, D/O.PERACHANKUTTY, PAMBALATH HOUSE, MUNDUPARAMBA AMSOM, MUNDUPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, UP-HILL, MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. ADV. SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR FOR R3 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: FAO.No. 362 of 2010() ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.09.2009 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI, IN OP(MV.)NO. 403/2006 ANNEXURE B : COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 28.08.2010 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI, IN I.A. NO. 1101/2010 & I.A. NO. 1102/2010 IN OP (MV) NO. 403/2006 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE smt HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ----------------------------- F.A.O.No. 362 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 10th June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No. 403/2006 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The case was listed for enquiry on 21.09.2009. Neither the appellant nor their Counsel were present on that day. Therefore, the Original Petition was dismissed for default. I.A. 1102 of 2009 was filed seeking restoration of the Original Petition dismissed for default. Along with I.A No. 1102 of 2009, I.A. No. 1101 of 2009 is also filed for condone action of the delay of 154 days in filing the restoration petition. The Tribunal found that there was no proper explanation for condonation. Therefore, I.A. 1101 of 2009 was dismissed. Consequently, I.A. 1102 of 2009 for restoration is also dismissed. The Original Petition is filed claiming compensation for the injuries, the appellant has sustained in the accident. The learned Tribunal held that the claimant/appellant was not vigilant in prosecuting the appeal. F.A.O.No. 362 OF 2010 :2: In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court of the view that an opportunity shall be given to the appellant to contest the case on merits. It is true that the appellant was not vigilant in prosecuting the case and delay in filing the restoration application was not satisfactorily explained. In this circumstance, this court is inclined to allow I.A. Nos. 1101 of 2009 and 1102 of 2009 on terms. The impugned orders dated 28th August 2010 in I.A. 1101 of 2009 and 1102 of 2009 are set aside. The I.As are allowed on condition that the appellant shall pay an amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as cost to the counsel for the contesting respondent namely the 3rd respondent Insurance company, within a period of 3 weeks from today, failing which, the appeal shall stand dismissed. The appellant and the 3rd respondent shall appear before the Tribunal on 9th July 2011. The Tribunal shall issue a fresh notice to respondents 1 and 2. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE smt