IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 842 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MACA.352/2010 .................... PETITIONER: ----------------------- CHERIAN THARAKAN, S/O.THARAKAN, SHARON ROSE, CHENGANNUR. BY ADVS. SRI. K.SHAJ, SRI. SAJJU.S. RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. YAMUNA, W/O.JAYARAJAN, BELLWAS, THEVALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 009. 2. JAYARAJAN, S/O.RAMACHANDRA KURUP, BELLWAS, THEVALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 009. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., POOVATHUR BUILDINGS, M.C.ROAD, CHENGANNUR - 689 121. R3 BY ADV. SRI. JACOB MURICKAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.NO.842 OF 2010 & M.A.C.A.NO.352 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010. O R D E R The review petition is filed to review the judgment passed by me in M.A.C.A.No.352/2010 on 25th June, 2010. There I had held that it is only an act only policy and therefore, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability. But it has to be stated that this matter was the subject matter of M.A.C.A.No.2253/2008. In that case, I have set aside the award and directed the insurance company to take notice to the other parties after it enters appearance. I have also specifically stated that the Tribunal shall permit all the parties to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. 2. I had perused the proceeding paper of the Tribunal. It is clear from that no notice is taken to the other side and the Tribunal has just noted the date of appearance as 1.12.2008 and thereafter had passed the orders. It is true that there is no liability for the insurance company for the : 2 : R.P.NO.842 OF 2010 & M.A.C.A.NO.352 OF 2010 reason that the vehicle is only covered by an act only policy. But there is a dispute inter se between the parties regarding the ownership of the vehicle. Since I have permitted the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions, the Tribunal should have taken care to see that notices were taken to all the parties. Therefore there are grounds to review the order and there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the review petition is allowed and the order passed be me in M.A.C.A.No.352/2010 is set aside and the mater is again remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to the present review petitioner to take notice to all concerned and the Tribunal shall permit all concerned to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. I make it very clear that the Tribunal shall see notice is given to all the parties. The insurance company is exempted from appearance as it has no liability. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 2.12.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 3 : R.P.NO.842 OF 2010 & M.A.C.A.NO.352 OF 2010 : 4 : R.P.NO.842 OF 2010 & M.A.C.A.NO.352 OF 2010 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.389 OF 2001 ............................................. 8th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T