The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P5 order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in an application filed with more than five years delay to set aside an ex-parte award. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and the entire liability was mulcted on the petitioner for reason of the accident having occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, who was also driving the vehicle. 2. The petitioner who was impleaded in the claim was issued notice, but he failed to appear. After about five years, the petitioner took up a contention before the Tribunal that, the petitioner was not served with a notice. In fact, the notice was issued to the petitioner by registered post and the same was also served as is evidenced by the acknowledgment card.
3. The petitioner's case is that the signature in the acknowledgment card and his actual signature differs. For the OPMAC180/20114 : 2 :
purpose of proving the same, the petitioner produced his passport which was issued much later on 15.11.2007. The MACT found that in fact, if the petitioner had a dispute on the signature in the acknowledgment card, he ought to have produced the admitted signature of that period. The signature in the application filed and that in the passport, according to the Tribunal would be self serving and which would not in fact prove that the petitioner had not signed on the acknowledgment card. It is also to be specifically noticed that the petitioner does not have a case that the address in which notice was sent was not his residential address. The petitioner, in fact, was the driver of the vehicle and he cannot feign ignorance of the accident also. The petitioner also did not adduce any evidence to the contrary to dislodge the presumption of service of notice evidenced by an acknowledgment. This Court does not find any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal in Ext.P5.
The above original petition is dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge