IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 6508 of 2000(Y)
1. O.V.ABDUL SATHAR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GOVINDAN NAIR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
For Respondent :SC ,UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :15/09/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------
O.P.No. 6508 OF 2000
------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
———————-
1. The respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV).No.222/1993 is the petitioner
herein. The writ petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 award of the
Tribunal, allowing the claimant/1st respondent herein (deleted
from the party array as per order dated 26.10.2007) to recover a
sum of Rs.9,750/- with interest at 12% per annum from the
petitioner herein. The petitioner herein was exparte before the
Tribunal. He is the registered owner of the vehicle involved in
the accident. The claim petition was filed without impleading
the Driver or the insurer of the vehicle. According to the
petitioner the vehicle in question was having a valid insurance
policy as evidenced by Ext.P2, on the relevant date of accident.
Hence the petitioner is seeking direction against the 2nd
respondent for payment of the amount of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent insurance company. The
counsel for 2nd respondent contended that this writ petition
O.P.6508/2000 2
challenging Ext.P1 award is not maintainable because the
petitioner ought to have approached the Tribunal itself for
getting the exparte award set aside. Further contention is that
the accident itself is suspicious since the police case was
registered long after the alleged date of the accident.
3. As contended by the 2nd respondent, the appropriate
remedy was to approach the Tribunal itself for getting the
exparte award set aside. However, I notice that the award of the
Tribunal is not sustainable for non-joinder of necessary parties.
It is mandatory on the part of the claimant to have impleaded the
driver of the vehicle for maintaining the claim petition before the
Tribunal. It is further noticed that genuineness of Ext.P2 policy
is not disputed by the 2nd respondent. Under these
circumstances, in order to meet the ends of justice, it is
necessary to direct the Tribunal to have a re-consideration of the
matter in the light of the insurance policy, after affording
opportunity to the parties concerned to contest the claim on
merits.
4. Under the above circumstances Ext.P1 award is set
aside. The Tribunal shall allow the claimant to implead the
Driver and insurer of the vehicle. The claim petition shall be
disposed of on merits after affording all parties to contest the
O.P.6508/2000 3
claim and to adduce evidence. Considering the fact that the
claim petition is of the year 1993, all endeavour shall be made to
dispose of the same as early as possible, at any rate within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this
Judgment.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb