MANJESH Vs. USHA, THANKAMMA THEKKECHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, SELVARAJ AND THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the 1st respondent in OP(MV) No. 466/05 pending before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. An award happened to be passed as Ext. P1, in which the petitioner was ex-parte. The liability had been fastened of the petitioner as well. On receiving notice of execution, the petitioner had come to know about the award being passed against him and accordingly he filed Exts. P3 and P4 to set aside the ex-parte order and to condone the delay in filing the petition for setting aside the ex-parte award. According to the petitioner, delay in disposal of Exts. P3 and P4 is causing substantial loss to him as there is a threat of recovery as against him. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of and from the nature of direction I intend to issue, there is no necessity to issue notice to respondents 1 to 3.

(2.) Learned standing counsel for the 4th respondent enters appearance and according to them, there is no direction against the Insurance Company. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of as follows:-