IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 2967 of 2008(C) ------------------------- OPMV.387/1993 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- T.V.PADMASANAN, USHUS, SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM, NOW RESIDING AT SREE PADMAM, NRA 126, LAKSHMI NADA, CUTCHERY P.O., KOLLAM-691 013. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. SHINE S.ANAND, SHINES HOUSE, ANGADICAL, KODUMAN. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.2967/2008 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AWARD DTD. 8/11/2002 IN OP (MV) NO.387/1993 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE POLICY WAS ALSO PRODUCED. A COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND I.A.NO.5529/2005 DTD. 30/11/2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE POLICY DTD. 31/1/1991 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT INSURANCE COMPANY. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 5/09/2007 IN I.A.NO.5529/2005 IN O.P.(MV) NO.387/1993 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 10/01/2008 ISSUED FROM THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 2967 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 31, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4, an order rejecting the application made by the petitioner for re-opening the award passed in O.P.(MV) 387/1993 on the file of the MACT, Pathanamthitta. 2. The petitioner is the registered owner of the stage carriage bearing registration No.KRQ 907 which was involved in an accident that occurred on 16.11.1991 in which the 1st respondent was the injured. According to the petitioner, in the claim filed by the respondent, notice was not served on him from the Tribunal and he was declared ex parte and Ext.P1 award was rendered. It is stated that though the vehicle was covered by a valid policy of insurance, without impleading the insurance company, the claim was filed and the award was passed rendering the petitioner himself liable to pay the compensation. 3. Subsequently, on receipt of the notice on the execution WP(C) 2967 of 2008 Page numbers petition, contending that he was getting notice for the first time and that the vehicle was covered by a valid policy of insurance with the 2nd respondent herein, the petitioner filed Ext.P2, IA No.5529/2005. Along with the IA, petitioner also produced Ext.P3 copy of the insurance policy. The IA was considered by the Tribunal and dismissed stating that nothing was produced to prove the the contention that there was a valid policy of insurance. It is challenging this order, the writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel now points out that coercive action was taken on the basis of the award and that the compensation also has been deposited by the petitioner by Ext.P5. 5. Since the accident was in the year 1991 and the award is of 2002, I am not inclined to interfere with the deposit that has been made and I clarify that it will be open to the claimant to get the amount released, if it is still in deposit. 6. However, I am not satisfied by the manner in which Ext.P2 application has been rejected by the Tribunal as per Ext.P4. A reading of the application shows that according to the petitioner there was no notice to him. If that be so, he cannot be faulted for WP(C) 2967 of 2008 Page numbers non-production of the policy of insurance. In any case, when the policy has been produced and since he had pleaded that he did not get notice, the Tribunal ought to have examined that complaint. In the circumstances there was no reason to have taken a technical approach in considering the application. Ext.P4 is therefore quashed and the Tribunal is directed to consider Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the Tribunal for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-