Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY,THE18H DAY OF MARCH201427TH PHALGUNA, 1935 O.P.(MAC).No.38 of 2014 (O) --------------------------------------------------- [I.A.Nos.4117 of 2013, 4118 of 2013 & 4119 OF2013IN O.P.(M.V.) No.45 OF2007OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA]. -------------------------- PETITIONER(S):- ------------------------ POPULAR MEGA MOTORS INDIA LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KUTTUKARAN CENTRE, MAMANGALAM, EDAPPALLY, REP.BY ITS JUNIOR MANAGER (LEGAL & TAX) JAYARAJ.
BY ADVS.SMT.T.A.LUXY SRI.JOJO GEORGE SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA RESPONDENT(S):- ---------------------------- 1. OMANA, W/O.VELAYUDHAN, NJATTUVETTI HOUSE, PILLARMUZHI, KUTTICHIRA VILLAGE - 685 501.
2. VINCENT, S/O.JOSEPH, KUNNAKADAN HOUSE, PERUNGAD ESTATE, MANIYAR DESOM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 685 501.
3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE - II, JEWEL RK, LAYAM ROAD, KOCHI - 682 011.
4. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 011. R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SMT.K.S.SANTHI R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.REMA. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1803-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING:- O.P.(MAC).NO.38 OF2014APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION IN OP(MV).45/2007. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE3D RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED3001.2011 IN O.P.(MV). NO.45/2007 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED2905.2013. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.4118/2013 FOR CONDONING THE DELAY OF1035DAYS IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE THE EX-PARTE. EXT.P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE THE EX-PARTE. EXT.P5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.4119/13 FOR STAYING THE REVENUE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS, BEFORE THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL IN OP(MV).NO.45/2007. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.333/2006 OF KORATTY POLICE STATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- --------------------------------------- NIL. vku/- ( true copy ) K. Vinod Chandran, J ------------------------------------ O.P.(MAC).No.38 of 2014-O ------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of March, 2014 JUDGMENT
The petitioner was the 2nd respondent in a claim petition filed by the 1st respondent, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered in an accident. The accident occurred on 02.08.2006 when a lorry hit against the motor cycle in which the claimant was travelling, causing injuries to her. The lorry was a brand new vehicle, which was in transit and, which, according to the petitioner, had a valid insurance policy, evident from Exhibit P6 First Information Report, which specifically states that the vehicle involved in the accident had a valid insurance policy. It is also submitted that the insurance policy was issued by the 3rd respondent. However, the claim was not contested by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The petitioner claims that no notice in fact was issued to the petitioner and none was received by the petitioner. In any event, the petitioner, who was the 2nd respondent in the claim petition, was declared ex parte and the Tribunal passed award dated 13.01.2011. OP(MAC).No.38 of 2014-O - 2 - 2. In the teeth of the Insurance Company having denied the policy, Exhibit P3 order was passed, mulcting the liability on the 1st and 2nd respondents, being respectively the driver and the petitioner herein. The compensation awarded was an amount of Rs.26,170/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization and also proportionate costs. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P4 revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner, upon which the petitioner had approached the Tribunal by Exhibit P5 series of applications seeking condonation of delay, setting aside of ex parte award as also stay of the proceedings issued by the revenue recovery authorities. The petitioner's claim in the Original Petition is that till the applications are considered, there may be a stay of revenue recovery proceedings.
3. But for the assertion of the petitioner, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was not issued with a notice. Normally the Tribunal would have issued notice to the respondents and would set ex-parte any party who fails to appear. It is also to be noticed that the applications filed before the Tribunal were grossly OP(MAC).No.38 of 2014-O - 3 - delayed and the delay was of more than 1000 days. It is also very pertinent that the 1st respondent, who is the claimant, has not yet received any amounts awarded by the Tribunal. However, in the context of the orders proposed to be passed in the Original Petition, it is deemed fit that no notice need be issued to the 1st respondent.
4. In the specific circumstances pleaded in the Original Petition, if the petitioner produces a Demand Draft for the entire amounts awarded with interest and proportionate costs, as has been awarded in Exhibit P3, within a period of two months from today, the Tribunal shall accept the Demand Draft and immediately disburse the amount to the claimant. The Tribunal shall then, only on the condition of the deposit made as aforesaid, set aside Exhibit P3 award only for the purpose of considering the liability of the insurer. Evidence, if required, shall be adduced only on that aspect. If the insurer is found to be liable to indemnify the petitioner herein, then necessarily an order has to be passed mulcting the liability on the Insurance Company, in which event the Insurance Company would be liable to refund the amounts paid by the petitioner, to the petitioner through the Tribunal. However, it is made clear that if OP(MAC).No.38 of 2014-O - 4 - notice has been issued and the petitioner has not appeared before the Tribunal by reason of his default, necessarily the interest liability from 13.01.2011 to the date of payment would be the liability of the petitioner herein. The Insurance Company will not be liable to compensate such amounts, which has to be computed by the Tribunal. If the petitioner complies with the aforesaid condition, revenue recovery steps shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two months from today. In the event of the petitioner failing to comply with the condition, the revenue recovery steps shall be continued and finalized from the stage at which it was interdicted. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran vku/- Judge. ( true copy )