IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP (MACT).No. 60 of 2010(O)
1. HANIL, S/O. DEVASSY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MUKUNDAN, S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR,
... Respondent
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
3. DINESHKUMAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.VIJAI MATHEWS
For Respondent :SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :12/01/2011
O R D E R
P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
O.P.(MACT) No. 60 OF 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was the first respondent in O.P.(MV)
No.989 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Clams Tribunal,
Perumbavoor. Inspite of service of notice and paper publication, the
petitioner and the second respondent herein who are the driver and
owner respectively of the vehicle involved in the accident did not
appear and contest the claim petition. The vehicle driven by the
petitioner was covered by a valid policy of insurance. By Ext.P2 award
passed on 8.1.2010, the Tribunal directed the insurer to pay the
amount of compensation awarded by it to the claimant and
permitted the insurer to recover the same from the driver and owner
of the the vehicle jointly and severally. The petitioner was held liable
as he did not produce a valid driving licence at the time of accident.
The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not possess
a valid driving licence for the reason that he did not respond to the
application filed by the insurer as I.A.No.3180/2005 wherein the
insurer had sought a direction to the driver and owner of the vehicle,
to produce the driving licence, if any, held by the petitioner. The
petitioner has filed Ext.P4 application to set aside ex parte award
passed against him along with Ext.P5 application to condone the delay
O.P.(MACT) 60/2010
2
in filing Ext.P4 petition. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a
direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor to
consider Exts.P4 and P5 petitions without delay. The petitioner also
seeks a direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Perumbavoor, to take note of Ext.P1, the driving licence which he
possessed during the relevant period.
2. The question whether Ext.P2 ex parte award passed
against the petitioner should be set aside or not after condoning the
delay in filing the application to set aside the award is primarily a
matter to be considered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Ext.P2 award was passed on 8.1.2010. The petitioner has filed Ext.P4
application to set aside the ex parte award along with Ext.P5
application to condone the delay in filing the same. The question of
considering the petitioner’s request to set aside the ex parte award
would arise only if the delay in filing the said application is condoned.
The petitioner has asserted in the writ petition that on the day on
which the accident took place, he had a valid driving licence. Reliance
is placed on Ext.P1 driving licence to substantiate that plea. In such
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal should consider
the request made by the petitioner in Exts.P4 and P5 and pass orders
O.P.(MACT) 60/2010
3
thereon expeditiously.
I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction
to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor to consider
Exts.P4 and P5 petitions in accordance with law, after notice to the
petitioner and respondents, expeditiously and in any event within four
months from today. Until orders are passed on Exts.P4 and P5
petitions, the second respondent shall keep in abeyance the steps, if
any, taken by them to recover the award amount from the petitioner.
P.N. RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE.
nj.