IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 RP.No. 365 of 2001(G) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MFA.465/1991 Dated 07/04/2000 OPMV.361/1986 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------- P.RUDRAN, KANNANHARA PUTHENVEETTIL, RAMAPURAM, KEERIKKAD P.O., KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 3. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. TSS.KAMALAMMA, SANKUMPARAMBIL VEEDU, THATHAMMUNNA MURI, NOORANADU VILLAGE, NOORNADU P.O., MAVELIKKARA TALUK. 2. K.SARALAMMA, DO. DO. 3. K.SYAMALAMMA, DO. DO. 4. S.S.VASUDEVAN, DO. DO. 5. K.VALSAMMA, DO. DO. 6. MONY, S/O. MAMMEN, THENVILA, KAMALA HELLI, BANGALORE 54, NOW RESIDING AT PADIPURACKAL PUTHENVEEDU, THATHAMUNNA MURI, NOORNADU VILLAGE, NOORNADU P.O., MAVELIKKARA TALUK. 7. THE MANAGE,R THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ALLEPPEY. ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL R7 BY ADV. SRI. GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- C.M.P.No.6784 OF 2001 & R.P.No.365 OF 2001 IN M.F.A.No.465 OF 1991 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010 O R D E R Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.Notice to the unserved respondents, particularly the 6th respondent, has been returned on the ground he has left. Obviously he has left without leaving behind proper address. It is clear that notice was taken to him in his last known address. Hence we declare that notice on the 6th respondent in the review petition and the C.M.P have been duly served. 2.Having perused the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that sufficient grounds have been shown to condone the delay in filing this review petition. The application is not opposed. C.M.P.No.6784/01 is hence allowed. RP.365/01 2 3.This review petition is by the second respondent in an application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The accident occurred on 18.4.1986. One N.Sivan Pillai died. The claimants are his legal representatives. They sued the review petitioner Rudran and Mony. The Tribunal found that the claimants were entitled to compensation and that Mony was liable to pay the amount since it held that Rudran had proved to its satisfaction, including on the basis of Exts.X1 and X2, that he had transferred the vehicle. Mony was driving the vehicle. Since Rudran was found to be not liable, the Tribunal did not pass any award against the insurer. 4.The claimants appealed to this Court. That appeal was considered focusing on the question whether the insurer was liable. It was held that there was an error in the spelling of Rudran in the insurance policy. Accordingly, this Court concluded that the insurance policy covers the vehicle in question and the insurer was none other than Rudran who, at that point of time, owned the vehicle. Accordingly, the RP.365/01 3 insurance cover was to be satisfied. It was held that it was only an “Act only” policy and accordingly, the insurer was directed to pay the amounts in terms of that policy. The remaining liability was fastened on Mony and Rudran, who are respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal. However, this Court did not upset the findings of the Tribunal that Rudran had sold the vehicle and that this has been proved by Exts.X1 and X2. Under such circumstances, we are clear in our mind that there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment sought to be reviewed in as much as there is no foundation at all for holding that Rudran was liable along with Mony to satisfy the remaining portion of the award. For the aforesaid reasons, we review the judgment dated 7.4.2000 in M.F.A.465/91 and order that the amounts left to be paid, after the insurer satisfies the award in terms of the 'Act only' policy, has to be recovered only from the first respondent in the claim petition, i.e., Mony; from his person and assets in RP.365/01 4 accordance with law. The review petition is allowed accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. kkb.6/10.