IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 OP (MACT).No. 2695 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------------- [O.P.(MV).NO.268/1985 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM] .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- PRAKASH, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, PRASOBHANA MANDIRAM, CHITHARA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL, SRI.K.NIRMALAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. BHAVANI, MANU VILASAM, KIRIPPURAM, CHANDAVILA VEEDU, KADAKKAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, PIN-670 543. 2. BABU, MANU VILASAM, KIRIPPURAM, CHANDAVILA VEEDU, KADAKKAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, PIN-670 543. 3. SUKUMARAN, MANU VILASAM, KIRIPPURAM, CHANDAVILA VEEDU, KADAKKAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, PIN-670 543. 4. PURUSHAN, MANU VILASAM, KIRIPPURAM, CHANDAVILA VEEDU, KADAKKAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, PIN-670 543. 5. RADHA, MANU VILASAM, KIRIPPURAM, CHANDAVILA VEEDU, KADAKKAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, PIN-670 543. 6. SANTHA, MANU VILASAM, KIRIPPURAM, CHANDAVILA VEEDU, KADAKKAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, PIN-670 543. BY THIS OP (MACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(MAC).2695/2011-O: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RESTORATION PETITION IN E.A. NO.160/2010 IN O.P.(M.V). NO.268/1985 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PETITION TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN E.A. NO. 159/2010 IN O.P. (M.V).NO.268/1985 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRI BUNAL, KOLLAM. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION IN E.A. NO.159/2010. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.A. NO. 159/2010 IN E.P.NO.15/2007 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.A. NO. 160/2010 IN E.P.NO.15/2007 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- O.P(MAC).No.2695 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th August, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P4 order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, condoning the delay of 491 days in filing the application to restore an execution petition that was dismissed for default and Ext.P5 order passed on that application restoring the execution petition to file are under challenge in this writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 2. The predecessor in interest of the respondents herein succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that took place on 18.1.1980. Respondents 1 to 6 herein thereupon filed O.P.(MV)No.268 of 1985 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam claiming compensation. By award passed on 20.10.1987 the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded the sum Rs.25,000/- as compensation and directed the petitioner herein, the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation with interest. The petitioner did not deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Respondents 1 to 6 O.P(MAC).No.2695 of 2011 -:2:- thereupon filed E.P.No.15 of 2007 for execution of the award. Notice was ordered on the execution petition. On the ground that notice of the execution petition was not served on the petitioner herein, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed E.P.No.15 of 2007 for default by order passed on 23.4.2009. The claimants (respondents herein) thereupon filed Ext.P1 application (E.A.No.160 of 2010) to restore E.P.No.15 of 2007 to file and Ext.P2 application (E.A.No.159 of 2010 ) to condone the delay of 491 days in filing the former. The petitioner opposed the said applications by filing Ext.P3 objections. In the affidavit filed in support of the applications the 4th respondent herein had stated that as his mother was laid up for the past more than two years he was not in a position to pay attention to the execution petition and that was the reason why he could not take steps to serve notice on the respondents or to file an application to have the execution petition restored to file within time. The petitioner contended in Ext.P3 objections that the reason stated is only an excuse to explain the delay in filing the application. By Ext.P4 order passed on 21.6.2011, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed the application and condoned the delay in filing E.A.No.159 of 2010. E.A.No.160 of 2010 was accordingly allowed by Ext.P5 order. Hence this original petition. O.P(MAC).No.2695 of 2011 -:3:- 3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has not passed a speaking order or taken note of the objections raised by the petitioner. It is also contended that the long delay in filing the application to restore the execution petition that was dismissed for default was not satisfactorily explained. The pleadings and the materials on record disclose that the claim petition was filed consequent on the death of the predecessor-in-interest of the claimants. The award in that case was passed on 20.10.1987 and it has become final. As per the award the petitioner is bound to pay the sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest. He did not pay the said amount for more than a decade. The claimants were therefore, constrained to file E.P.No.15 of 2007. Even thereafter the petitioner did not pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. On the ground that notice of the execution petition was not served on the petitioner herein, the execution petition was dismissed for default. The claimants thereupon filed the application seeking restoration of the execution petition after condoning the delay in filing the application. In the affidavits filed in support of the applications it was stated that the first respondent herein is bedridden for the past more than two years and therefore the claimants could not pay proper attention to the prosecution of E.P.No.15 of 2007. O.P(MAC).No.2695 of 2011 -:4:- Having regard to the totality of the facts set out, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was of the opinion that the respondents (claimants) should be given an opportunity to have the execution petition decided on the merits. In my opinion, the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal restoring the execution petition to file cannot be said to be illegal. Under the award the petitioner was bound to pay compensation to the respondents. The award has admittedly become final. The petitioner, who has refused to comply with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for the past nearly 14 years cannot, in my opinion, be heard to contend that the claimants should not be given an opportunity to have the execution petition decided on the merits. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the original petition. The original petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- O.P(MAC).No.2695 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 19th August, 2011