RAJESH CHANDRAN Vs. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original petition is filed to set aside the common order dtd. 5/10/2021 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara (in short 'Tribunal') in I.A.Nos.4451/2019, 4452/2019, 3/2021 and 4/2021(Ext.P8) in O.P.(MV) No.178/2010.

(2.) The skeletal facts, relevant for the determination of the original petition, are: the petitioner is the applicant in the above claim petition, filed under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000.00 from the respondents, on account of the injuries sustained to the petitioner in an accident on 16/12/2005. The claim petition was dismissed on 24/4/2012 for nonprosecution. The petitioner had filed Ext.P2 application, to restore the claim petition, with Ext.P3 application, to condone the delay in filing Ext.P2 application. However, Exts.P2 and P3 applications were dismissed on 10/2/2014. Then, the petitioner filed Exts.P4 to P7 applications to restore Exts.P2 and P3 applications and to condone the delay in filing the subsequent applications. The Court below, by the impugned Ext.P8 order, dismissed Exts.P4 to P7. Ext.P8 is erroneous and wrong. The petitioner was a Maison. He is still suffering on account of the injuries sustained to him in the accident. He had entrusted the matter to an Advocate. He was under the bonafide belief that the claim petition was being diligently prosecuted by his counsel. The Court below, without considering the applications in its proper perspective, dismissed the applications by Ext.P8 common order. Hence, the original petition.

(3.) Heard; Sri.R.V.Sreejith, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.VPK.Panicker, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. Service is complete on the 1st respondent. I have dispensed with notice to the 2nd respondent.