IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 2059 of 2009() ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/08/2008 IN IA. 530 /2007 IN OPMV.481/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------- T.G.SATHEESAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, KALAVOOR PO, MARARIKULAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.ARUN KUMAR SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.M.R.VIBIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------- 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, REP.BY MANAGER, MULLAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA. 2. M.SHAJI, PALIATHCHIRA, MANNANCHERRY PO, ALAPPUZHA. 3. ADARSAN SOMAN, NIKARTHIL VEEDU, MANNANCHERRY PO, ALAPPUZHA. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A No.2059 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20 th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The owner of an autorikshaw involved in a road accident which took place on 11.2.2001 at 1.30 p.m is the appellant in this appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He challenges the orders in I.A.Nos.530 of 2007 and 531 of 2007 in O.P.(M.V) No.481 of 2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. As per award dated 16.8.2005 in O.P.(M.V) No.481 of 2001 the Tribunal had allowed the claimant to realize a sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest and cost from the respondents thereto with a direction to the 3rd respondent insurer to pay the amount and recover the same from the appellant herein. The reason for passing an order for payment and recovery was that the 2nd respondent driver was not having a Badge at the time of accident. According to the appellant, the 2nd respondent did have a badge and it was omitted to be produced before the Tribunal below. M.A.C.A.No.2059/2009 2 2. Raising the above contentions the appellant filed I.A.No.530 of 2007 before the Tribunal below seeking a review of the award. The review petition was accompanied by a petition to condone the delay (I.A.No.531 of 2007) of 17 months. The Tribunal, as per the impugned common order dated 5.08.08, dismissed the petition to condone the delay and consequently the review petition. Hence this appeal. 3. Even assuming that notwithstanding the decision of the Apex Court in Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and another (2005)13 SCC 777) an application for review is maintainable by the MACT which has not been specifically conferred with the power to review. The further obstacle for the appellant is that the impugned orders do not amount to an award so as to become appealable under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In this view of the matter, this appeal is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed as such. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is desirous of challenging the original award dated 16.8.2005 passed by the Tribunal below. This judgment will M.A.C.A.No.2059/2009 3 preclude the appellant from challenging the award by filing a proper appeal accompanied by the necessary petition to condone the delay and in case the appellant makes a request for return of the certified copies of the orders produced along with this appeal, the same shall be returned by the Registry. Dated this the 20 th day of August, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj