IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 OP.No. 31569 of 2002(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., THIRD PARTY CLAIMS CELL, VETUKATTIL BUILDING, KOCHI-16, REPRESENTED BY IT'S ASST. MANAGER, MRS.GRACY PETERS. BY SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. CHAKRAPANI, S/O. VAVA, THEKKEPULIKAL MAKKEKADAVU, THYCATTUSSERY, CHERTHALA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MOHAMMED RAFIQ, R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 31569/2002-G: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.(MV).NO.742/95 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPUZHA. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE CONSENT AWARD IN O.P.(MV).NO.1242/95 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P.(MV).NO.742/95 ON THE FILE OF MACT, ALAPUZHA. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P.(MV).1242/95 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT, ALAPUZHA. EXT.P.5: LETTER NO.993/02 NIL. DT. ISSUED TO THE MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, M.G. ROAD BRANCH, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 31569 of 2002 ================== Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in this original petition is an insurance company who was impleaded as the 3rd respondent in O.P(MV.)No.742/1995 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. By Ext.P1 common judgment, that O.P(MV). was allowed directing the insurance company to pay Rs.8,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner in the O.P(M.V), who is the 1st respondent herein, with 12% interest from 5.5.1995 till the date of realisation and costs of Rs.300/-. The petitioner is challenging that award. That award is challenged on the ground that the very same claim was filed again as O.P(M.V.). No.1242/1995, in which, an agreed award was passed for an amount of Rs.7000/- on 2.10.1996, even before Ext.P1 award, by which, the insurance company agreed to pay Rs.7000/- towards compensation to the petitioner, which was paid and accepted. It is subsequently, Ext.P1 award has been passed on 10.6.1998. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this original petition seeking the following relief: “Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction and set aside Ext.P1 judgment passed by the M A C T, Alappuzha against the petitioner- Company.” 2. On 23.8.2006, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order in this original petition. “The petitioner is an Insurance Company in the public sector which is challenging two awards passed in respect of the same claim. Obviously claim is based on a policy issued by any Branch of the Insurance o.p.31569/02 2 Company. If two awards happened to be issued, it would be only on account of the lack of coordination in the company itself. The blame should go more to the company than the claimant and their advocates. The Company is not even able to explain as to who represented the Company. Ext.P2 does not show as to the persons who represented the company and the claimant before the MACT. It is seen that under Ext.P2 award, company was bound to deposit the cheque for Rs.7,000/- within one month from the award which is dated 2.10.1996. Strangely the company after making payment allowed another claim petition to be pursued in the same matter and got an award on merits vide Ext.P1 dated 10.6.1998. The award amount is Rs.8,000/-. The second award happened to be issued only because the company did not inform the MACT about the compromise award passed earlier. Therefore, the lapses are obviously on the part of the company. The Manager, Operations of the petitioner-company in charge of the State is directed to conduct enquiry about the persons involved in the conduct of both the cases on behalf of the company and take appropriate action for the irresponsible conduct of the cases and file a report in this court within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” Pursuant thereto, a report dated 25.2.2008 has been filed by the Manager-in-Charge, Technical Department, Regional Office, Kochi, of the petitioner insurance company, explaining the circumstances under which this happened. 3. Although the 1st respondent entered appearance, no counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. There cannot be any doubt that in respect of the same accident a victim cannot claim compensation twice. Admittedly, by Ext.P2 award, the claim had been settled by the claimant accepting to receive an amount of Rs.7000/- which has been paid also. That being so, in respect of the same claim, another award could not have been passed validly. Therefore, Ext.P1 award is unsustainable. Accordingly, Ext.P1 award is quashed. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge o.p.31569/02 3 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 31569 of 2002-G ================== J U D G M E N T 6th July, 2010