IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 OP.No. 6508 of 2000(Y) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- O.V.ABDUL SATHAR, S/O. YOUSUF, OOLIKARA HOUSE, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- *1. GOVINDAN NAIR, S/O. KESAVA PANICKER, KOTTEZHATH HOUSE, NETTOOR, MARADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., ALUVA. (* R1 DELTED FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES AS PER ORDER DT.26.10.07 IN O.P.) ADV. SC, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. FOR R2 SRI.RAJAN P.KALLIYATH, SC.UII FOR R2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.6508/2000 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:- COPY OF AWARD DT.3.12.97 PASSED BY MACT,ERNAKULAM IN OP(MV). 222/93 EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE INSURANCE POLICY NO.100901/31/40/11/9977/91 ISSUED BY R2 IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE NO.KCE/6156 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL okb //True Copy// P.A. to Judge O.P.6508/2000 ORDER ON I.A.10908 OF 2000 IN O.P.6508 OF 2000 DISMISSED. SD/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. 15.9.2009 okb /True copy/ P.A. to Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ O.P.No. 6508 OF 2000 ------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV).No.222/1993 is the petitioner herein. The writ petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 award of the Tribunal, allowing the claimant/1st respondent herein (deleted from the party array as per order dated 26.10.2007) to recover a sum of Rs.9,750/- with interest at 12% per annum from the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein was exparte before the Tribunal. He is the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The claim petition was filed without impleading the Driver or the insurer of the vehicle. According to the petitioner the vehicle in question was having a valid insurance policy as evidenced by Ext.P2, on the relevant date of accident. Hence the petitioner is seeking direction against the 2nd respondent for payment of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent insurance company. The counsel for 2nd respondent contended that this writ petition O.P.6508/2000 2 challenging Ext.P1 award is not maintainable because the petitioner ought to have approached the Tribunal itself for getting the exparte award set aside. Further contention is that the accident itself is suspicious since the police case was registered long after the alleged date of the accident. 3. As contended by the 2nd respondent, the appropriate remedy was to approach the Tribunal itself for getting the exparte award set aside. However, I notice that the award of the Tribunal is not sustainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is mandatory on the part of the claimant to have impleaded the driver of the vehicle for maintaining the claim petition before the Tribunal. It is further noticed that genuineness of Ext.P2 policy is not disputed by the 2nd respondent. Under these circumstances, in order to meet the ends of justice, it is necessary to direct the Tribunal to have a re-consideration of the matter in the light of the insurance policy, after affording opportunity to the parties concerned to contest the claim on merits. 4. Under the above circumstances Ext.P1 award is set aside. The Tribunal shall allow the claimant to implead the Driver and insurer of the vehicle. The claim petition shall be disposed of on merits after affording all parties to contest the O.P.6508/2000 3 claim and to adduce evidence. Considering the fact that the claim petition is of the year 1993, all endeavour shall be made to dispose of the same as early as possible, at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb