IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942
OP (MAC).No.77 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2020 IN I.A.NOS.18586/2019 AND
18587/2019 IN OP(MV)NO.1004/2010 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
SIBI, AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. MOHANAN, CHITTILAKKADU VEEDU, VETTOOR P.O,
VETTOOR VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM, VETTOOR P.O,
VETTOOR VILLAGE,TRIVANDRUM,
NOW RESIDING AT MANJADIYIL,THODIYIL, KOTTIKADA P.O,
MAYYANAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691 020
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP
SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE
SMT.O.A.NURIYA
SRI.D.S.LOKANATHAN
SRI.ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.
2 SUBASH @ CHOOCHU,
S/O. SADASIVAN, 2/133, SUDHAMANDIRAM, NEAR
AKKAPOIKA UPS, ELAMAD, KOTTARAKKARA-691 506
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (MAC).No.77 OF 2020 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein is the claimant in OP(MV)No.1004 of 2010 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The respondent appeared and filed written statement. However, the case was not pursued by the petitioner herein. It was dismissed for default on 10.01.2019. Ext.P3 restoration application was filed as IA.No.18587 of 2019 with Ext.P4 application to condone the delay as IA.No.18586 of 2019. They are produced respectively. The Tribunal dismissed the delay condonation application by Ext.P5, order. Consequently, the restoration application was dismissed by Ext.P6 order. These orders are under challenge in the Writ Petition.
2. The learned standing counsel for the KSRTC vehemently opposed the Writ Petition contending that, the Tribunal after a proper evaluation of the pleadings in the delay condonation application arrived at a conclusion that there was gross laches on the part of the petitioner. It was also pointed out that, even though the OP(MV) was posted for taking steps against R2 after substitution, in spite of OP (MAC).No.77 OF 2020 3 granting three opportunities, the petitioner failed to take steps. When the case was posted, there was no appearance also. OP(MV) was consequently dismissed. It was also pointed out that on an earlier occasion, the claim petition was dismissed, which was restored after condoning the long delay of 24 months and 22 days.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that, though there were laches on the part of the counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner shall not suffer for the laches on the part of the counsel. It was also submitted that the petitioner has shifted his residence and hence he did not receive the communications from the counsel.
4. Essentially, it is the petitioner who is duty bound to keep in touch with the counsel and to instruct him on the progress of the case rather than awaiting intimation from the counsel. Evidently, the petitioner failed in his duty as a responsible client. However, having considered the fact that the petitioner is an injured person, who could not enjoy the benefits of a beneficial legislation, I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter on OP (MAC).No.77 OF 2020 4 merits.
5. Hence, I am inclined to allow IA.No.18587 of 2019 and to condone the delay. Consequently, the delay is condoned. The impugned orders are set aside. The application for condonation of delay as IA.No.18586 of 2019 is allowed. Consequently, the claim petition will stand restored to file. For the inconvenience caused to the respondent as well as to the Tribunal and for causing delay in the judicial proceedings, it is directed that if ultimately an award is passed in favour of the petitioner. It is made clear that interest ordered will not be considered for the period of nine months and eight days which is the subject matter of this petition. It is made clear that this will be the last opportunity to the petitioner herein to contest the matter on merits. The MACT shall take up the matter on 11.02.2021, on which day both sides shall be represented and the Tribunal shall proceed in accordance with law thereafter.
O.P.(MAC) is allowed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE R.AV OP (MAC).No.77 OF 2020 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN OP (MV) NO. 1004/2010 FILED BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM.
EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV) NO.1004/2020 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM.
EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE IA NO. 18587/2019 IN OP(MV) NO. 1004/2010 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM.
EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF THE IA NO. 18586/2019 IN OP (MV)NO. 1004/2010 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM.
EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2020 IN IA NO. 18586/2019 IN OP(MV) NO.
1004/2010 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM.
EXHIBIT P6 THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2020 IN IA NO. 18587/2019 IN OP(MV) NO.
1004/2010 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS NIL