IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.NO. 1556 OF 2006() --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/06/2005 IN IA.5744/02 & 4811/05 IN OPMV.358/1996 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------------- DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.R.JAGADISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S) - PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MURUKAN, KOLLAMVILAKATHU VEEDU, KOLLAMVILAKOM, KULATHUMAL, CHAIKOTTUKONAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. K. CHANDRAN, KAITHARATHAKADI VEEDU, PERUMPAZHATHOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A FOR R.1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. No.1556 of 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Koshy, J. This appeal is filed by the insurance company questioning the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in O.P (MV) No.358 of 1996. Claimant-first respondent sustained injuries in a motor accident on 8.9.1995. He claimed Rs.2,50,000/-. Claim petition was filed in 1996. Exhibit A1 award was passed on 10.8.2000 in the Lok Adalath stating that the matter was settled. Claimant filed a petition to set aside the said award and he also approached his Court. This Court directed the Tribunal to dispose of the petition filed by the claimant for setting aside the award. According to the claimant, he did not sign any settlement. He only received Rs.20,000/- being part payment of the award. Those contentions were accepted, the award passed in the Lok Adalath was set aside and the matter was re-heard. The Medical Board certified 30% disability. But after assessing the injuries, treatment undergone and the evidence, Tribunal fixed the disability as 20%. There was fracture of femur and other injuries including lacerated wound, 4x2 cm near upper part of left leg and lacerated wound, 10x5 cm exposing the medial side of left knee. M.A.C.A. No.1556 of 2006 -: 2 :- Medical Board noticed that there was shortening and deformity of the lower limb. Even though Medical Board assessed 30% disability, the Tribunal accepted only 20% disability and compensation was calculated taking Rs.1,800/- as the monthly income. A total compensation of Rs.1,09,910/- was awarded inclusive of medical expenses during the period of treatment, with interest from the date of original application till realisation. 2. Appellant filed a review petition. The contention taken in the review petition was that interest should have been awarded only from the date of setting aside the award passed in the Lok Adalath and till the date of realisation. Review petition was allowed and interest was allowed only from the date of setting aside the award passed in the Lok Adalath. Now, in this appeal it is contended that the award passed by the Tribunal itself is wrong as the matter is already covered by the award passed in the Lok Adalath. It is true that no appeal is provided against the award passed in the Lok Adalath and it cannot be technically reviewed by the Tribunal. But the award passed in the Lok Adalath was not signed by the parties. It was signed only by the Advocate. Such an award is a nullity. Proper remedy of the appellant was under Article 226 of the Constitution when the Tribunal set aside the award passed in the Lok Adalath with M.A.C.A. No.1556 of 2006 -: 3 :- notice to the petitioner and that order was not challenged by the appellant in time. The matter was considered by the Tribunal and after considering the evidence an award was passed. Thereafter review petition was filed by the appellant. Appellant was heard and the only dispute in the review petition was regarding the award of interest. The Tribunal reviewed the award as requested by the appellant and interest was awarded from the date of petition till 10.8.2000, the date of the first award and thereafter from 30.12.2004, date of reopening of the award till date of realisation. The claimant did not file any appeal against the reduction of interest at the instance of the insurance company in the review petition. Appellant was aware of all these facts. Appellant therefore, cannot now challenge the award on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. We find no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv