High Court Kerala High Court

Raju Thomas vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 23 August, 2007

Kerala High Court
Raju Thomas vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 23 August, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 29121 of 2005(P)


1. RAJU THOMAS, AGED 54 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.JOHN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.J.THOMAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :23/08/2007

 O R D E R
                       PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
                        -------------------------------
                     W.P.(C) No. 29121 OF 2005
                      -----------------------------------
                 Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2007

                               JUDGMENT

The 1st respondent in OP(MV) Nos.21 of 1996, 22 of 1996 and

2565 of 1995 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palai

is the petitioner in this Writ Petition under Article 227. The 1st

respondent herein is the Insurance Company and the 2nd respondent is

the claimant. Before the MACT the petitioner was arrayed as the 1st

respondent on the allegation that he is the owner of the offending

autorikshow, having registration No. KL-5/A-7614. Ext.P1 common

judgment was passed by the Tribunal in the Original Petitions wherein

the petitioner as well as the driver of the vehicle remained ex-parte.

Under Ext.P1, the 1st respondent Insurance Company was directed to

deposit the compensation amount and no liability is cast on either the

petitioner or the driver of the vehicle to pay compensation to the

claimants. The petitioner submits that subsequent to Ext.P1, on behalf

of the Insurance Company, an application under Order 47 was filed

before the MACT seeking review of Ext.P1. It was contended in the

review application that the driver (the 2nd respondent herein) was not

holding a valid badge at the time of the accident and on that reason

sought permission for recovering the amount from the petitioner. The

WPC No.29121 of 2005
2

Tribunal passed Ext.P3 order allowing the review application. It is urged

that Ext.P3 order was passed by the Tribunal without notice to the

petitioner and without hearing the petitioner and hence violative of the

principles of natural justice. Ext.P3 order was passed in OP(MV) No.21

of 1996. Similar orders were passed in OP Nos.2596 of 1995 and 22 of

1996 also. On the strength of Ext.P3 and similar orders, Exts.P4 to P6

execution petitions were filed by the Insurance Company.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in spite of his objections,

the Tribunal ordered issuance of recovery certificate for realisation of

the amount claimed in Exts.P4 to P6 from the petitioner. Hence the Writ

Petition with the following prayers:

i. Call for the records relating to Ext.P3 and similar orders

passed in OP(MV) Nos.22/96 and 2565/95 of the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Palai and set aside the same;

ii. Stay all further revenue recovery steps ordered by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palai in pursuance to Exts.P4 to

P6 execution petitions in OP(MV) Nos.21/96, 22/96 and 2565/95

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palai.

3. I have heard the submissions of Mr.M.J.Thomas, learned

counsel for the petitioner. It is seen that no counter affidavit has been

filed by the 1st respondent Insurance Company. The allegation of the

petitioner is that it was without notice to him that Ext.P3 and similar

WPC No.29121 of 2005
3

orders were passed by the Tribunal stands established. I am of the view

that on that ground Ext.P3 and similar orders passed in OP Nos.22/96

and 2596/95 by the MACT, Palai are liable to be set aside. I set aside

Ext.P3 as well as similar orders passed in the review applications in OP

(MV) Nos.22/96 and 2596/95 by the MACT, Palai and direct the MACT,

Palai to take fresh decision on the three review petitions with notice to

the petitioner, the Insurance Company and all others concerned. The

petitioner is permitted to urge all available grounds including the ground

that lack of power for the MACT to review its own judgment by placing

reliance on the judgment in Cherushpam Hospital Trust v. Palai

Municipality [2005(2) KLT 234] and any other authorities, if any. Fresh

decision as directed above will be taken by the MACT at the earliest and

at any rate within two months of receiving copy of this judgment.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt

WPC No.29121 of 2005
4