IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 1175 of 2004() -------------------------------------- OPMV.953/1993 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------- T.P.SIMON, S/O. PYLUNNY, THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, CHERUTHURUTHY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 & ADDL.RESPONDENTS 8 TO 11 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- 1. K.M.SULAIMAN MUHAMMED, POTTAYIL HOUSE, PETTAH, MUVTTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. Y.SATHEESAN, THIRUVICKALKUTTIYIL VEEDU, KATTACHIRA, PALLICKAL, KAYAMKULAM. 3. K.K.ABDUL SALAM, S/O. KHADER, KARAKKATTU P.O., EDATHALA, ALUVA. 4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, P.B.NO.158, THIRUVAMBADY DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, ROUND WEST, THRISSUR. 5. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MAMPARAMBIL CHAMBERS, M.C.ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. P.Y.ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O. YOUSAF, PAPANKOTTIL HOUSE, CHERUTHURUTHY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 7. NAJEEB, S/O. ALI, KARAKATTU HOUSE, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, EDATHALA KARA, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. AISHA BEEVI, D/O. ALI, KARAKATTU HOUSE, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, EDATHALA KARA, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 9. SUNITHA, D/O. ALI, KARAKATTU HOUSE, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, EDATHALA KARA, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 10. MARRYUMMA, D/O. ALI, KARAKATTU HOUSE, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, EDATHALA KARA, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY FOR R7TOR10 SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R4 SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. No.1175 of 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Koshy, J. Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for property damage. His vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-8/B-1411 was hit by lorry bearing Reg. No.KEF-7329 driven by the third respondent and sustained heavy damage. He claimed an amount of Rs.2,53,446/- as damages. Tribunal after considering the evidence awarded Rs.1,29,784/-. Since insurance liability was limited to Rs.6,000/-, balance was allowed to be recovered from the owner and driver of the vehicle. At that time the real owner of the offending vehicle (No.KEF- 7329) was not a party in the case. Thereafter he was impleaded as 7th respondent. He died and his legal representatives contested the matter, case was reopened and a revised award was passed after hearing all parties, for Rs.61,000/-. Thus the amount in the original award was reduced. None of the respondents challenged the award. It is the contention of the appellant that law does not permit passing of a revised award after passing an award for Rs.1,29,784/-. But award was revised at the instance of the legal heirs of 7th respondent who contended that they were not heard. Appeal was referred to the Adalath and a draft M.A.C.A. No.1175 of 2004 -: 2 :- settlement was arrived at and it was signed by the appellant, insurance company as well as the contesting respondents. Counsel for the 7th respondent was also agreeable for the settlement. But when the case was posted for final award, the legal representatives of the original 7th respondent backed out from the settlement and requested the Adalath to reopen the matter. Since no award was passed and only a draft settlement was arrived at in the Adalath, Adalath sent back the case to the court for decision on merit. None of the respondents filed appeal. On going through the evidence, we are of the opinion that original award was passed without hearing the owner. After hearing the owner on the basis of the materials adduced, revised award was passed reducing the amount. After considering the matter, we are of the opinion that no interference is required in the impugned award. Since none of the respondents challenged the award, the award is binding on the respondents. We find no reason to interfere with the said award at the instance of the claimant. Appeal is dismissed. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv