IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 23792 of 2007(G) -------------------------- OPMV.2429/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM OPMV.2443/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. BHASKARAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, AGED 57 YEARS, KUMBALATHU NIKATHIL, UZHUVA, PATTANAKKAD VILLAGE, PATTANAKKAD (PO), CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. OMANA, W/O.BHASKARAN, AGED 54 YEARS, KUMBALATHU NIKATHIL, UZHUVA, PATTANAKKAD VILLAGE, PATTANAKKAD (PO), CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. SHAIJU, S/O.REGHUVARAN, AGED 25 YEARS, PALACHANATTU VELIYIL HOUSE, WARD NO.7, PATTANAKKAD VILLAGE, PATTANAKKAD (PO), CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, VAZHUTHACAUD BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. WPC.No.23792/07 3. T.A.RAJAN, ADVOCATE, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM. (THALIYACHIRA, VELIYANAD P.O., PIN 682319). ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM Respondent No.4 is suo motu impleaded as per order dated 3-1-2008 ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.ARUL KUMAR.P FOR R3 SRI.BIJIMON C.CHERIAN FOR R3 SRI.LOWEL CHERIAN FOR R3 SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL FOR R3 SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R2 SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2010 ALONG WITH MACA NO. 2402 OF 2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)Nos.23792 OF 2007 & M.A.C.A.No.2402 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. These two cases unveil a very disturbing scenario which may have a very damaging repercussion on the entire legal profession, if what is alleged by the petitioners/claimants is true. 2. When these cases came up before us on the last occasion, we had called for the records from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals concerned, in order to find out whether there is any semblance of truth in what has been alleged by the petitioners/appellants. We have perused the records. 3. Parents of one Binu, aged 22, who died in a motor accident, are the appellants in the appeal before us. According to the appellants, they had preferred O.P.(MV)No.158/2002 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha claiming compensation for the death of their son. The Tribunal after trial found that the appellants had already obtained an award in respect of the same accident from the MACA.No.2402/08 &WPC.No.23792/07 2 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. Therefore, the claim petition was dismissed. The said award is under challenge in the appeal. 4. It is contended by the appellants that they had never preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal at Kottayam. They had not engaged any counsel to do so. According to them, the counsel who allegedly filed the claim petition might have played fraud on them. 5. It is seen from the records that the Tribunal at Kottayam had passed an award on September 23, 2005 in favour of the appellants and their daughter ( sister of the deceased) in O.P.(MV)No.2429/2001 for a sum of Rs. 2,88,900/-. It is also revealed that the same Tribunal had in O.P.(MV)No.2443/2001, passed another award on October 4, 2005 for Rs. 26,900/- in favour of the rider of the two wheeler which was involved in the accident. These two claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal at Kottayam by a lawyer who, according to the appellants was never engaged by them. 6. The appellants have preferred W.P.(C)No.23792/2007 in the above facts and circumstances praying for issue of a writ of MACA.No.2402/08 &WPC.No.23792/07 3 certiorari to quash the proceedings in the above two claim petitions which have culminated in the two awards referred to above. 7. The prayer in the appeal is to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal at Alappuzha and remit the case back to the Tribunal after affording sufficient opportunity to them to prosecute their claim petition. 8. As mentioned earlier, we had called for the records from the two Tribunals concerned. The appellants and the rider of the offending two wheeler appeared before us as directed. It is seen from the records that the counsel who filed the claim petition before the Tribunal at Kottayam had been duly authorised by the claimants in those two cases. The claimants had executed Vakalath in the presence of witnesses. Similarly, the Vakkalath filed by the counsel at Alappuzha also reveal that those Vakkalaths were executed by the claimants in the presence of witnesses. When these Vakkalaths were shown to the appellants and the rider, they denied their signature in both of them. In other words, they disowned the signature not only in the Vakkalath which was filed by the counsel before the Tribunal at MACA.No.2402/08 &WPC.No.23792/07 4 Kottayam, but also the other Vakkalath which their counsel had filed (as authorised by them) before the Tribunal at Alappuzha. 9. We do not propose to make any comment on this preposterous situation. The fact remains that unnecessary and quite unfortunate embarrassment has been caused to the entire legal fraternity. For that reason alone, we do not propose to make any further comment on the scenario that is stated to be prevailing in this particular jurisdiction relating to claim petitions in motor accident cases. 10. Though learned counsel for the appellants wanted us to peruse the report filed by the Superintendent of Police who was directed by this court to conduct an investigation into the circumstances which led to this sordid episode, we are not inclined to do so. It will be in the interest of all, particularly the Bar at large, that this unfortunate turn of events is given a decent burial. 11. It is brought to our notice that the Insurance Company has not deposited the amounts covered under the two awards so far. 12. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, we are MACA.No.2402/08 &WPC.No.23792/07 5 of the view that a quietus can be given to the issue by exercising our power under Article 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly in exercise of that power, we quash the awards that had been passed by the Tribunal at Kottayam in O.P.(MV)No.2443/2001 and 2429/2001. 13. M.A.C.A.No.2402/2008 is allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal at Alappuzha in O.P.(MV)No.158/2002 is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the claim petition filed by the appellants afresh in accordance with law after affording them sufficient opportunity to prosecute the case. It is brought to our notice that O.P. (MV)No.197/2002 filed by the rider has already been settled in the Adalat. Therefore the said claim petition need not be reopened. The Writ Petition and the Appeal are disposed of in the above terms. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.2402/08 &WPC.No.23792/07 6