IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 474 of 2007(F) --------------------------------- OPMV.1179/1995 of II ADDL. M.A.C.T., KOZHIKODE ............................................................................................. PETITIONER: ------------------ A.VINEETHA, D/O. APPUTTY, AMATTU HOUSE, PEDIYATTUKUNNU, KADALUNDI. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. O.T.M.NOUSHAD, S/O. KUNHALAVI, ZEENATH MANZIL, VILAYOOR P.O. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., COURT ROAD, MANJERI. ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12 / 08 / 2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 474./2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Ext.P1 : Copy of the Order in O.P(MV) No.1179/1995 dated 17.2.2004 on the file of II Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. Ext.P2 : Copy of the review petition which is numbered as I.A.370/2004 in O.P.(MV) No.1179/1995 dated 23.07.2004. Ext.P3 : Copy of the order in I.A No.370/2004 dated 21.7.2006 in O.P No.1179/1995 on the file of II Addl. Motor Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. // True Copy // PA to Judge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 474/2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of August 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in this writ petition is the claimant in O.P(M.V)No.1179/1995 on the files of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The claim petition was initially dismissed by the tribunal through Ext.P1 award, dated 17/02/2004 observing that the petitioner had failed in proving the accident, because the copy of FIR produced does not relate to the accident in question and inspite of sufficient opportunity given the claimant had failed in producing the proper records. Against Ext.P1, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 petition seeking for a review. It is submitted that the petitioner had produced the relevant records relating to the criminal case registered in connection with the accident along with Ext.P2. But the tribunal had dismissed Ext.P2 application, observing that there is no error apparent on the face of the records in Ext.P1 Order, warranting review of the W.P.(C) No.474/20072 2 decision taken earlier. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that production of wrong FIR happened only due to a mistake on the part of the counsel and that she had produced the correct records pertaining to the case subsequently. It is noticed that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not vested with powers of review as contemplated under Order XLVII of CPC. But in a decision of this Court in Asmath Khan Vs. Chandrahasankar 2006(4) KLT 494), it is held that the Tribunal had power to review its own orders in circumstances as mentioned in Order XLVII CPC. On considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this is a fit case which warrants review of the dismissal made through Ext.P1 on the basis of the records produced subsequently. Hence considering the interest of justice it is only proper to set aside the award and to afford the claimant to adduce fresh evidence. In the result, Ext.P3 Order of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikkode in O.P(M.V) 1179/95 is W.P.(C) No.474/20073 3 hereby quashed and Ext.P2 petition for review is allowed. Consequently Ext.P1 award stand set aside. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the claim petition afresh after affording opportunity to the claimant to adduce evidence. Considering the fact that the claim petition is of the year 2004, it may be disposed as early as possible, at any rate within a period of 4 (four) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment by the Tribunal. C.K ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE SS