IMPORTANT POINT
Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. Instant writ appeal is filed by the appellant/writ petitioner challenging the judgment dated 12.12.2019 in W.P. (C) No. 3025 of 2019, by which a learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition holding that, in the absence of any vitiating element, writ court cannot interfere with the award passed by the Lok Adalath.

2. Short facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant/writ petitioner was the injured/claimant in O.P. (MV) No. 6 of 2015, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam. The accident occurred on 6.9.2014 around 11.30 a.m., at Koonathara. While he was travelling as a pillion rider, in a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-51 E-2359 from Kulappully to Koonathara, a car bearing registration No. KL-51 A-7227, driven by the 1st respondent in the abovesaid O.P. (MV) No. 6 of 2015, came from the opposite direction, dashed against the motorcycle, driven by appellant’s friend named Sajeesh. Both, the rider of the motorcycle Sajeesh and the appellant, were thrown off from the motorcycle and sustained serious injuries. According to the appellant, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car.

3. Immediately, the appellant was taken to P. K. Das Hospital, Vaniamkulam, Ottapalam, and he was hospitalized till 17.09.2014. Surgery was conducted as a part of the treatment and a huge amount of money was spent for the same.

4. At the time of accident, the car was owned by the 2nd respondent in O.P. (MV) No. 6 of 2015. New India Assurance Company Limited, Ottapalam, Palakkad, the respondent herein, was the insurer of the car. The car was having valid insurance coverage. All the vehicle documents were in order. The driver of the car had a valid driving licence also. Appellant submitted a claim petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for Rs. 3,00,000/-. The case was referred from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam to the Lok Adalath organised by Taluk Service Committee, Ottapalam, under Section 19 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 and numbered as Lok Adalath Case No. O.P. (MV) No. 6 of 2015. The original petition was compromised before the Lok Adalath for an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- and that the compensation amount was received by the appellant.

5. Now, the grievance of the appellant is that complications related to the injuries suffered in the accident persisted, post settlement also. He was not fully informed about the physical conditions that might subsequently develop, due to the injuries sustained. He had gone into settlement on a mistaken understanding that the injuries and the resultant effects/conditions fully subsided and cured. He is now advised to undergo total hip replacement surgery, as a cure for the injuries sustained by him, in the accident, which is costly. According to the appellant, the cost is said to be around Rs. 2,50,000/-. Without hip replacement, it will not be possible for him to lead a normal life. Now, the appellant is unable to undertake his avocation as an electrician and his livelihood is affected. It is highly necessary that the appellant be protected against the future treatment and the disability suffered. In such circumstances, he has contended that the award passed by the Legal Service Authority is liable to be set aside.

6. Thus, the appellant/writ petitioner has approached this court by filing W.P. (C) No. 3025/2019, seeking for a direction to quash Exhibit-P3 award dated 12.12.2015 passed by the Taluk Legal Service Committee, Ottapalam. He has also sought for a direction to restore O.P. (MV) No. 6 of 2015 on file and proceed to adjudge the issues involved in the original petition, in accordance with law.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances, a learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, as under:

“2. The petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 award. The petitioner submits that he could not bring medical records and o