IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 MACA.No. 1319 of 2005() ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/09/2001 IN IA 1975/01 IN OPMV.642/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT - IST RESPONDENT - IST RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- THE SECRETARY, THE AUTORIKSHAW DRIVERS' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS - PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MINI VILLAPURAM HOUSE, SREENIPURAM THREE CENT COLONY, KANAKAPPALAM P.O., ERUMELY. 2. ASSAINAR M.L., SON OF LATHEEF, MARIYIL HOUSE, `S' CURVE BHAGOM, PEZHAKKAPPALLY P.O., MOOVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN SRI.P.BABU KUMAR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.NO.1319 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the first respondent in O.P.(MV) No.642/1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala challenging an order passed in I.A.No.1975/2001 and also the award passed in the Original Petition. First respondent/claimant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident. She filed Original Petition impleading the owner, driver and also the insurer of the autorickshaw. It was alleged that while the first respondent was engaged in the tarring work an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KRK 6984 driven by the second respondent came in a rash or negligent manner and hit against her person, causing injuries. She filed Original Petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Appellant/first respondent filed a written statement contending that it was not the owner of the vehicle. It was contended that the vehicle was transferred to one T.K.Asokan in the year 1986 and the accident occurred on 4.1.1998 and hence he was not liable to pay compensation. Appellant produced a copy of the document evidencing the transfer of the vehicle also. Tribunal found that there was no valid policy of insurance on the date of accident. But the Tribunal directed the third respondent insurer to deposit the compensation amount. Third respondent filed I.A.No.1975/2001 impleading the claimant alone for review of the order. In fact in the cause title itself it was specifically stated that appellant owner and MACA No.1319/2005 2 driver were not made parties to the review petition (I.A.No.1975/2001). In spite of the fact that owner and driver are not in the party array, the Tribunal reviewed the award exonerating the insurer and the appellant and driver who were not parties to the review petition were directed to deposit the compensation amount. Challenging the award and order in I.A.No.1975/2001, this appeal is filed. 2. It is trite law that an order cannot bind to a person who is not party to the proceedings. First respondent/claimant filed Original Petition alleging that the vehicle was owned by the appellant. Appellant denied its ownership and produced a copy of the registration particulars to show that it transferred the vehicle to one Asokan. Appellant produced RC particulars to show that Asokan subsequently transferred the vehicle towards one C.Mohanan w.e.f. 9.8.1990. Whether Mohanan had taken any valid policy of insurance was not known. Tribunal held that appellant is responsible in spite of specific contention that the claimant did not implead the subsequent purchasers. Tribunal though found that there was no valid policy of insurance directed the insurer to deposit the compensation. That award was reviewed without notice to the appellant and without impleading it in the review petition. So the procedure adopted by the Tribunal is illegal and without jurisdiction. But considering all aspects of the matter I am of the view that after sustaining the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal the matter can be remanded to the Tribunal for the limited purpose of fixing the liability. It is open to the claimant to implead the subsequent purchasers. MACA No.1319/2005 3 In the result, appeal is allowed. Award passed in O.P.(MV) No.642/1998 so far as it relates to liability alone and the order passed in I.A.No.1975/2001 by which the Tribunal shifted the liability to appellant are hereby set aside. Tribunal is directed to take O.P.(MV) No.642/1998 back to file and dispose of the same afresh in accordance with law after affording both sides an opportunity to adduce evidence on the point of liability alone. I make it clear that I am confirming the finding of the Tribunal regarding quantum of compensation and negligence of the driver. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 12.3.2008. Amount, if any deposited shall be subject to the final decision in O.P.(MV). I.A.No.2493/2005 in M.A.C.A.No.1319/2005 will stand dismissed. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. cks