IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 474 of 2007(F)
1. A.VINEETHA, D/O. APPUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. O.T.M.NOUSHAD, S/O. KUNHALAVI,
... Respondent
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :12/08/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 474/2007
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 12th day of August 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner in this writ petition is the claimant
in O.P(M.V)No.1179/1995 on the files of the Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The claim petition was
initially dismissed by the tribunal through Ext.P1 award,
dated 17/02/2004 observing that the petitioner had failed in
proving the accident, because the copy of FIR produced does
not relate to the accident in question and inspite of sufficient
opportunity given the claimant had failed in producing the
proper records. Against Ext.P1, the petitioner filed Ext.P2
petition seeking for a review. It is submitted that the
petitioner had produced the relevant records relating to the
criminal case registered in connection with the accident
along with Ext.P2. But the tribunal had dismissed Ext.P2
application, observing that there is no error apparent on the
face of the records in Ext.P1 Order, warranting review of the
W.P.(C) No.474/20072
2
decision taken earlier.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that production of
wrong FIR happened only due to a mistake on the part of the
counsel and that she had produced the correct records
pertaining to the case subsequently. It is noticed that the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not vested with powers of
review as contemplated under Order XLVII of CPC. But in a
decision of this Court in Asmath Khan Vs. Chandrahasankar
2006(4) KLT 494), it is held that the Tribunal had power to
review its own orders in circumstances as mentioned in
Order XLVII CPC. On considering the facts and circumstances
of this case, this is a fit case which warrants review of the
dismissal made through Ext.P1 on the basis of the records
produced subsequently. Hence considering the interest of
justice it is only proper to set aside the award and to afford
the claimant to adduce fresh evidence.
In the result, Ext.P3 Order of the Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikkode in O.P(M.V) 1179/95 is
W.P.(C) No.474/20073
3
hereby quashed and Ext.P2 petition for review is allowed.
Consequently Ext.P1 award stand set aside. The Tribunal is
directed to dispose of the claim petition afresh after
affording opportunity to the claimant to adduce evidence.
Considering the fact that the claim petition is of the year
2004, it may be disposed as early as possible, at any rate
within a period of 4 (four) month from the date of receipt of
a copy of this Judgment by the Tribunal.
C.K ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
SS