A lower tribunal is obligated to substantively reconsider applications for restoration and delay condonation when directed to do so by a High Court order, regardless of prior dismissal orders that were challenged in the relevant appeal or petition.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the 2^nd respondent in OP(MV)

No.803/2019. The said claim petition was preferred by respondents 1 to 4 claiming compensation for the death of one Maniyan in an accident involving the vehicle owned by the petitioner herein. The Tribunal, by Ext.P1 award, found the driver of the vehicle liable for the accident and awarded an amount of Rs.6,63,000/- with 8% interest per annum from the date of the petition till realization. The Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the award at the first instance reserving the right of recovery from the petitioner herein. When recovery steps were taken against petitioner by the Insurer, the petitioner filed R.P.No.6/2024 (Ext.P5) to set aside the ex- parte award and I.A.No.1 of 2024 (Ext.P4) to condone the delay in filing the Review Petition. The Tribunal, by Ext.P2 order, rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequentially, by Ext.P3 order, dismissed the Review Petition. Against Exts.P2 and P3, the petitioner preferred this original petition.

2. This Court, by judgment dated

10.04.2025, disposed of the original petition directing the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 petition for setting aside the ex- parte award and Ext.P4 application for condonation of delay in filing that application within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. However, the Tribunal, by Ext.P6, passed an order as follows:-

“Address the Hon’ble High Court regarding the fact that the Restoration Petition and IAs were already disposed of.”

3. Challenging Ext.P6 order, the petitioner preferred OP(MAC) No.107/2025. The said Original Petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to file a review petition against the judgment dated 10.04.2025 in OP(MAC) No.5/2025. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred a review petition as R.P.No.307/2026 and this Court, by order dated 06.04.2026, allowed the review petition and directed that the original petition be posted for fresh consideration.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

5. When this Court directed the Tribunal to dispose of Exts.P4 and P5 applications, what this Court meant was to reconsider those applications in accordance with law. However, the Tribunal has passed an order stating that those applications were already disposed of. The original petition was preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the findings in Exts.P2 and P3 orders passed on Exts. P4 and P5 applications. It was in the said circumstances that this Court directed the Tribunal to consider Ext.P5 application filed for setting aside the ex- parte award and Ext.P4 application for condonation of delay.

6. Accordingly, Exts.P2, P3 and P6 orders are set aside. There will be a direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 application for setting aside the ex-parte award and Ext.P4 application filed for condonation of delay afresh and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The execution proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain suspended till a fresh decision is taken by the Tribunal on the applications, as above.

The original petition is disposed of.