High Court Kerala High Court

A.Lawrance vs Narayanan Chettiyar on 22 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
A.Lawrance vs Narayanan Chettiyar on 22 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 3557 of 2008(W)


1. A.LAWRANCE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. NARAYANAN CHETTIYAR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. V.VIJAYAN, S/O R.VARGHESE,

3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR

                For Respondent  :SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :22/07/2008

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J

       -------------------------------------------------------
                      W.P.(C).NO.3557/2008
       --------------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 22nd    day of July, 2008


                            JUDGMENT

Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 award rendered by

the MACT, Alappuzha in O.P(MV).No.1816/1999. According

to him, despite the fact that, he was not served with notice

from the Tribunal, he was declared ex-parte and

exonerating the Insurance Company, compensation was

ordered to be paid by him. It is stated that, he came to

know of the award only when revenue recovery steps were

initiated against him in November, 2007. According to the

counsel, there upon, the petitioner filed Exts.P5 and P6

applications for condonation of delay and to get the ex-parte

award set aside along with Ext.P9 to stay the operation of

the award. The complaint is that while orders are not

passed, on these applications revenue recovery action is

2

continued.

2. Although notice has been issued in this writ petition,

it has been served only on respondents 2 and 3 and in so far

as the Ist respondent is concerned, notice is returned with

the endorsement ‘not known’. In the nature of the order

that I propose to pass, I do not think it necessary to keep

this writ petition pending any more.

Taking note of the facts as stated above, the writ

petition is disposed of directing that the Tribunal shall

consider and pass orders on Exts.P5 and P6 along with

Ext.P9 stay petition filed by the petitioner seeking stay.

This the Tribunal shall do as expeditiously as possible, at

any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a

copy of this judgment.

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE

vi.

3