IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13127 of 2010(M)
1. K.D.BIJU, S/O.DIVAKARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.S.PRASAD, S/O.SIVADASAN,
... Respondent
2. SHYLESH (DIED), S/O.BHADRAN,
3. P.D.IVISWA RAO, AYATHIL PUTHENVEEDU,
4. THE ORIENITAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
5. JYOTHI SHYLESH, W/O.LATE SHYLESH,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :26/05/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.13127 OF 2010
----------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner has filed this Writ petition challenging the
execution proceedings initiated by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Kottayam (‘MACT’, for short) against him for
implementing Ext.P2 award. The petitioner was involved in a
motor accident involving a motor car that was driven by the
3rd respondent, which collided with a motor cycle driven by
the 1st respondent. The car also hit the jeep that was driven
by the petitioner. The 1st respondent filed Ext.P1 claim
petition for the grant of compensation for injuries sustained in
the accident. Though the petitioner had received notice in the
claim petition, he approached the registered owner of the
jeep, one Sri.T.K.Sabu, and informed of the same. He assured
the petitioner that he would contest the case.
2. Later the petitioner got a job in Bombay and he left
the place. According to the petitioner, he came to know of
Ext.P2 award only when a copy of Ext.P3(A) execution petition
was served on him. The petitioner immediately took steps to
W.P.(C) No.13127/2010 2
set aside the award by filing Ext.P4 application. Ext.P4 was
accompanied by a petition, Ext.P5, to condone the delay in filing
the same. The complaint of the petitioner is that the MACT is
proceeding with the execution, without passing any orders on
Exts.P4 and P5. He, therefore, seeks appropriate directions for
an expeditious disposal of the said petitions.
3. In the nature of the limited relief that is sought for, I
do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents. It is
sufficient that this Writ petition is disposed of directing the
MACT to consider and pass orders on Exts.P4 and P5 on an early
date.
4. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is
disposed of directing the MACT, Kottayam to consider and pass
final orders on the applications filed by the petitioner,
I.A.Nos.711/2010 and 712/2010 in O.P.M.V.No.1513/2010,
evidenced herein by Exts.P4 and P5, as expeditiously as possible,
at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. Pending final orders on the
W.P.(C) No.13127/2010 3
petitions referred to above, all further proceedings to execute
the award of the MACT, Kottayam against the petitioner based
on Ext.P3(A) petition shall be kept in abeyance.
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)
ps