SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 11850

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
SHAJAHAN – Appellant
Versus
PRADEEPA RAMESH – Respondent
OP (MAC) NO. 109 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.PRATHEESH.P, SMT.ANJANA KANNATH, SMT.SAFNA P.S.
For the Respondents: SRI. P.K. MANOJKUMAR, SC.

The court allows reopening a case for contestation due to delays caused by pandemic restrictions, stressing procedural fairness.

Headnote:This judgment analyzes the application to set aside an ex-parte award due to delay attributed to the petitioner's inability to contact counsel amid the Covid-19 Pandemic. The High Court finds justification for granting the petitioner a fresh opportunity to contest the case, emphasizing the urgency for the Tribunal to rehear the matter within four months. The impugned orders are set aside and future recovery actions are stayed until a new decision is reached.

Result: The original petition is allowed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to ex-parte award due to procedural delays. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court grants fresh opportunity for a fair hearing. (Para 4 , 5)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Exts.P5 and P6 orders in I.A.

No.2 of 2024 and in restoration petition No.47 of 2024 in O.P. (M.V.) No.2658 of 2019 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam.

2. I.A. No.2 of 2024 was filed to condone the delay of 709 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte award. The specific contention of the petitioner is that he came to know about the award only when he received notice in the proceedings for revenue recovery, as he had engaged a counsel to appear before the Tribunal to contest the case. It is further stated that the petitioner could not contact his counsel to enquire about the case due to Covid-19 Pandemic, which resulted in the delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte award.

3. The Tribunal, by Ext.P5 order, rejected the application for setting aside the exparte award and consequently dismissed the restoration petition No.47 of 2024.

4. This Court, upon admission of the original petition, directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on 31.07.2025, and the said order was modified, permitting the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for the said amount. The same was complied with, and a memo to that effect has been filed, producing the receipt issued from the Tribunal.

5. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner contends that there was a valid policy in existence at the time of the accident, despite latches on the part of the petitioner, I am inclined to grant a chance to the petitioner to contest the proceedings, making it clear that I have not expressed anything on the merits of the matter and it is for the Tribunal to decide upon the same in accordance with law. The impugned orders in Exts.P5 and P6 are set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, to rehear and pass orders in O.P.(M.V.) No.2658 of 2019 within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till final orders are passed as directed above, all further coercive steps for recovery shall be kept in abeyance.

6. The parties will appear before the Tribunal on

17.03.2026. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Tribunal concerned forthwith.

The original petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top