A party that fails to contest an award has limited recourse; conditions for remittance can require deposit of awarded amounts.

JUDGMENT

The owner of a vehicle, found to be offending one in a road accident which happened on 22.12.2017, is the appellant before this Court.

2. Sri.V.A.Johnson – learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the impugned Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad (the 'Tribunal' for short), in OP(MV)No.1551/2018, is incorrect and illegal because it has been issued without affording any opportunity to his client and after having declared him ex-parte. He, however, conceded, to a pointed question from this Court, that the learned Tribunal has already rejected his client's application to set aside the ex-parte Award, namely, IA No.2770/2020, finding the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the same to be unworthy of credence. He nevertheless argued that, since the entire responsibility has been cast upon his client, though the offending vehicle has a valid insurance policy, necessary latitude must be shown to him, so that he gets an opportunity to prove both, that there was no negligence on the part of the driver; and in the alternative, that the offending vehicle is covered by a valid insurance policy.

3. Sri.K.I.Abdul Rasheed – learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the contrary, submitted that this appeal is edificed on incorrect facts, particularly that appellant was not given an opportunity of contesting the matter. He pointed out that, as has been found by the learned Tribunal in its order in IA No.2770/2020, though the appellant claimed that he did not receive summons from the learned Tribunal, the fact remains that he was also given the opportunity to contest, which he refused. He argued that, therefore, even if this Court is inclined to remit this matter to the learned Tribunal, it may be only on condition that full compensation as awarded by the Tribunal, be ordered to be deposited, so that his client can then receive it, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Tribunal.

4. I must say that there is great force in the afore submissions of Sri.K.I.Abdul Rasheed because, it is only on account of the insouciance exhibited by the appellant that matters have now come to this state. His assertion before the learned Tribunal, that he was not served summons before the Award was issued, has been found to be incorrect; and in fact, there is also sufficient material to establish that he had received the same and had refused the opportunity to defend his case appositely.

5. Obviously, if this Court is, therefore, to offer any latitude in his favour, it can only be on condition that he will deposit the amount now awarded by the Tribunal, at least to the extent of Principal. Certainly, the claimant must be in a position to receive the same, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Tribunal.

6. Since Sri.V.A.Johnson accepts the afore condition, I deem it appropriate to allow this appeal on such terms.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed and the Award of the learned Tribunal is set aside; consequentially, remitting the Original Petition for reconsideration, after affording necessary opportunities to both sides of leading fresh/additional evidence and of further hearing, which shall be done, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I direct the parties to appear before the learned Tribunal at 11 am on 13.04.2023 for this purpose.

I, however, clarify that the above is on the specific condition that appellant will deposit an amount Rs.3,75,425/-, before the learned Tribunal within a period of one month from today; which can then be received by the claimant, as per the satisfaction of the learned Tribunal.

Needless to say, if no deposit is made as afore, then the benefit of this judgment will be lost to the appellant; and the impugned Award of the learned Tribunal will revive, with liberty being reserved to the claimant to recover the amounts as per law.