Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1944 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOPMV 1974/2008 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR EC ACT CASES & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,TSR PETITIONER/S: JOJU AGED 50 YEARS S/O. POULOSE, 236, VIDAYATHIL HOUSE, P.O. MARATHAKKARA, THRISSUR -, PIN - BY ADVS. A.R.NIMOD M.A.AUGUSTINE RESPONDENT/S:
1 LAZAR S/O. OUSEPH, PUDUSSERYPPADI HOUSE, KONIKKARA DESOM, THRIKKUR VILLAGE. THRISSUR -, PIN - 680306 2 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. MAHESWARI BLDG., 3RD FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, THRISSUR. REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 680001 3 K.M. KASIM KUMMAKANDATHIL HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA, THRISSUR., PIN - 680565 4 NASEEMA SHAJAHAN W/O. SHAJAHAN, KAREKKETTIYAKATH HOUSE, THAIKKAD PO, GURUVAYOOR (VIA), CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DT., PIN - SMT. K.S SANTHI SC, INSURANCE
THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
O.P.(MAC) No 122 of 2022 have been filed challenging the
award passed on 27.09.2017 in O.P.(M.V)No.1974 of 2008 in respect of an accident occurred on 15.08.2008 at 10.30 P.M. The claimants who were travelling as passengers in a car bearing registration No.KL-46/B-91 sustained injuries on account of having met with an accident with a lorry bearing registration No.KL-7/P- 3094 driven by the first respondent and owned by the petitioner. Before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, neither the owner or the driver despite having received the notice, contested the petition which resulted into an award determining the compensation by ordering the insurance company to discharge the liability of the award and thereafter seek recovery under the revenue recovery
proceedings. The petitioner came to know about the aforementioned award and as the respondent insurance company had filed an execution proceeding, accordingly filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte award Ext.P4 dated 22.06.2022, review application Ext.P5 dated 22.06.2022, application for delay condonation Ext.P6 dated 01.08.2022 as well as application for withdrawal of execution proceedings dated 01.08.2022.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was confident that the liability would be of the Insurance Company as the driving licence held by the driver was valid, but, at the time of the accident it had already been submitted to the authorities for renewal against a valid receipt. The receipt was produced before the police, but the Insurance Company had filed an application against the ex parte owner and driver. No effort was made to summon the record of the police to show whether the police had seized the licence of the owner or driver or the circumstances, which have surfaced in this case, were in existence at the relevant point of time. He prays that a direction be issued to the MACT to expedite the hearing of the applications referred to above and till such time, recovery need not be made against the owner for the claim of the claimants have already been satisfied.
3. Issue notice before admission. Ms.K.S.Santhi accepts notice for the Insurance Company. She submits that the petitioner as well as the driver had deliberately absented from the proceedings. Had these documents and the contention were brought before the MACT, the said anomalous situation would not have arisen.
4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.
5. It is a matter of record that on account of the award
dated 27.09.2017, the claim of the claimants have already been satisfied by the Insurance Company as per the directions contained. The contention of the owner for the time being appears to be just and equitable as the receipt given by the registering authorities for renewal of the licence was in existence and had been submitted to
the police authorities. For the reason best known it was not brought to the notice of the MACT.
6. Since the applications for review/setting aside of the ex
parte order/delay condonation as well as for withdrawal of execution proceedings are pending, I am of the view that it would be appropriate to issue directions to the MACT to decide the
interim applications in O.P.(M.V.) No.1974 of 2008 wherein applications have been filed to expedite the hearing of the applications, in accordance with law by affording 3-3 effective opportunities to the parties and decide the same within a period of four months. Till such time the recovery proceedings initiated against the owner is ordered to be kept in abeyance.
Original Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- sab AMIT RAWAL JUDGE APPENDIX OF OP (MAC) 122/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR DATED 27.09.2017 Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF HIS DRIVING LICENSE WITH NO KL0819850000744 Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE REGISTER ISSUED BY THE TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KERALA Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF I.A 1/2022 DATED 22.06.2022 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT TO SET ASIDE EX-PARTE AWARD IN OP(MV) Exhibit-P4 Translation TRANSLATION OF EXT-P4 Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF R.P 2/2022 DATED 22.06.2022 TO REVIEW AWARD IN OP(MV) 1974/2008 Exhibit-P5 Translation TRANSLATION OF EXT-P5 Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF I.A 3/2022 DATED 01.08.2022 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN REVIEWING THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 1974/2008 Exhibit-P6 Translation TRANSLATION OF EXT-P6 Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF EXECUTION APPLICATION E.A.183/2022 DATED 22.06.2022 TO WITHDRAW REVENUE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS IN E.P 189/2019 IN OP(MV) 1974/2008 Exhibit-P7 Translation TRANSLATION OF EXT-P7 Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE WITH RRC NO. Exhibit-P8 Translation TRANSLATION OF EXT-P8