IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 5293 of 2008(E) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/11/2007 IN IA.1092/07 IN OPMV.62/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANSOOR, S/O. POKKER, ENGACHALIL HOUSE, PULASSERY POST, KOPPAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. RASHEED, S/O. KUNHALAVI, VALAYATH PULAKKAL, PATTAMBI POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.VENUGOPAL SRI.R.SREEHARI SRI.RANJIT SREENIVAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.NAZAR, S/O. MUHAMMED, PUNNADIYIL HOUSE, AMBALAYATTOM POST, PANAMANNA, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., JRJ COMPLEX, OTTAPALAM. *ADDL.R3: MUHAMMADALI, MATTAMTHADOM, ADVOCATE, OTTAPALAM. *(IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD 6.3.2008 IN IANO.3066/08) ADV. SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 5293 of 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF MVOP 62/2006 FILED BEFORE MACT, OTTAPALAM DT 10.5.2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF KUNHAHAMMED DT 19-5-05. EXT.P3: COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF AWARD PASSED IN OP(MV)62/2006 DT 31-10-2006 OF MACT, OTTAPALAM. EXT.P5: COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE IA 3564/06 IN OP (MV) 62/06 OF MACT OTTAPALAM. EXT.P6: COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED IN IA 1092/07 IN O.P.(MV)62/06 OF MACT OTTAPALAM. EXT.P7: COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN IA 1092/07 IN OP(MV)62/06 OF MACT OTTAPALAM. EXT.P8: COPY OF COMMON ORER PASED IN IA 1091 & 1092/2007 IN OP(MV) 63/06 AND 62/02006 OF MACT OTTAPALAM DT. 6-11-2007. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5293 OF 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.62/2006 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam claiming a total compensation of `.80,000/-. After filing the claim petition, he went abroad for employment. When he came back, he came to understand that the claim petition was settled for an amount of `.16,000/-. According to the petitioner, even the medical bills of the petitioner would come to more than `.16,000/- and therefore, the settlement was not just and proper. It is further submitted that, that settlement was without the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed a petition to set aside the settlement award and to consider the claim on merits. The same was dismissed by Ext.P8 order along with another similar petition by another claimant on the ground that the petitions were not filed within a reasonable time. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: W.P.(C)No.5293/08 2 “(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate Writ order or direction, calling for the records leading to Exhibit P-8 order and to set aside the same; (b) Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam to reconsider IA 1092/2007 in O P (MV) 62 of 2006 and pass orders afresh considering the contentions of the petitioner by allowing the application and setting aside the Settlement Award Ext.P-4”. 2. I have heard the parties. From Ext.P4 award, it is seen that the settlement was arrived at in the Adalath under the Legal Services Authorities Act. As per regulation 33(1) of the Legal Services Authority Regulations (Kerala), the settlement has to be signed by the parties. This legal position has been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in Leela v. Manager, National Insurance C.Ltd. [ILR 2008(1) Kerala 403]. In this case admittedly the petitioner had not signed the settlement and therefore the requirement of Regulation 33(1) is violated. In view of the above legal position, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ought not to have passed the award in terms of the Adalath settlement. On the question of delay, on which ground the I.A. was dismissed, I find that the petitioner has approached the Tribunal within five months. I do not think that, that is an unreasonable delay. Even W.P.(C)No.5293/08 3 otherwise, when a patent illegality has been committed against the provisions of law, by the Tribunal itself, the Tribunal ought to have taken a lenient view in the matter. Accordingly, Exts.P4 and P8 are quashed. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam is directed to adjudicate O.P.(MV) No.62/2006 afresh on merits, after taking evidence in accordance with law. This writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.5293/08 4