Sibi vs The Managing Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 52 Ker

            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

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

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

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