Sibi vs Managing Director K.S.R.T.C And Ors

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.