IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 2326 of 2004(B)
1. M.P.ABDURAHIMAN HAJI, AGED 45 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ARATHY, REP. BY MOTHER GUARDIAN SREEJA,
... Respondent
2. KALATHINGAL ABDUL NAZAR,
3. UNITED INIDA INSURANCE COMPANY
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :26/07/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NOs. 2326,2448,2467,2518/2004
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of July , 2007
JUDGMENT
Invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court
under Article 227 and also under Article 226 of the Constitution
the petitioner, who was the second respondent before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, has filed these writ petitions
seeking to set aside Ext.P3 common award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal in 10 claim petitions arising out of the
motor accidents involving jeep of which the petitioner is the
registered owner.
2. Heard Sri.T.K.Ajith Kumar, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri.Babu S.Nair, the learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent and Sri.A.R.George the learned counsel for the 3rd
respondent Insurance Company. The contours of this court’s
jurisdiction under Article 227 are well known. Having gone
through Ext.P3, it is not possible to say that Ext.P3 order is
vitiated to the extent of warranting corrections under the above
WPC No.2326/2004 & others 2
jurisdiction which is exceptional. The para meters for exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 on judicial orders are also
practically the same as those applicable to supervisory
jurisdiction.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he had just one month
prior to the accident transferred the ownership and possession of
the jeep in question to the 2nd respondent and that it was the
obligation of the 2nd respondent to have submitted the sale
letters, which had already been issued by him to the 2nd
respondent along with the agreement, before the authorities
under the Motor Vehicles Act and facilitated mutation of entries
in the register. The petitioner complains that the 2nd respondent,
who was under the obligation to appraise the MACT of the true
facts, willfully refrained from doing so which resulted in Ext.P3
common award. The learned counsel would submit that the 2nd
respondent had assured the petitioner even after the petitioner
had received notice from the MACT that whatever is necessary
will be done by the 2nd respondent so that the petitioner will be
absolved from the liabilities under the pclaims. I am not
impressed by the above submission. Admittedly, the petitioner
WPC No.2326/2004 & others 3
received notice from the MACT directing him to enter appearance
before the MACT. On his own volition, he opted not to appear
before the MACT. Concededly he is the registered owner and
ownership has not changed. The issue regarding the
maintainability of the writ petition whether under Articles 226 or
227 of the Constitution on a facts situation like the present one,
is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in
Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co.Ltd. and another
(AIR 2003 SC 1561) , Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shrikant Vinod
Tiwari (2007 (3) KLT SN 10 (A.P.) and Division Bench of this
court in Ashraf v. Fthima (2004 (2) KlT 598).
The challenge against the impugned order fails. Accordingly,
the writ petition is dismissed.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,
JUDGE.
Dpk
WPC No.2326/2004 & others 4