BY ADVS.SRI.BIJI MATHEW SRI.B.V.JOY SANKAR v. Kalyambi Nanan in 1984 KLT 763 to contend W.P.C.No.176 OF 2009 -2
Case at a glance
- Bench
- A M SHAFFIQUE
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of as above
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The relief prayed in the above writ petition is to quash Ext. P2 which in fact is a copy of the O.P.(MV) 260/1997 which lead to Ext. P3 award. In the light of what is stated above the challenge to Ext.P3 award cannot be…
Judgment
BY ADVS.SRI.BIJI MATHEW SRI.B.V.JOY SANKAR RESPONDENT(S) ============= 1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 K.B. SUNNY, ADVOCATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-01-2012 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.No. 176 of 2009 (U) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED IN O.P.(MV) NO. 202 OF 1997 DATED 08.05.2000. P2: COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION IN O.P.(MV) NO.260 OF 1997. P3: P4: COPY OF THE DECREE/ORDER IN O.P.(MV) NO.260 OF 1996 BY THE LOK ADALATH DATED 30.01.1999. COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.2510/2001 IN O.P.(MV)NO. 260/1997 DATED 29.08.2008. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No. 176 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of January, 2012 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has obtained an award from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(MV) 202/1997. During execution stage the Judgment debtor, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation has produced Ext. P3 award by contending that the petitioner had already obtained an earlier award in O.P.(MV)260/1997 and that too settled through Lok Adalath on 30/01/1999, and therefore Ext. P1 is not executable. Petitioner filed a review petition before the claims Tribunal as I.A.No.2510 of 2001 to review the order in O.P.(MV)260/1997 which ended in dismissal by Ext. P4 order on the ground that since the matter is settled before the Lok Adalath, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction and rightly so.
The counsel relied upon the judgment in Appi Pennu Vs Kalyambi Nanan in 1984 KLT 763 to contend W.P.C.No.176 OF 2009 -2- that when there are two judgments in the matter, the later judgment has to be taken into consideration. I do not think that the facts involved in this case has any relationship to the facts as stated in Appi Pennu Vs. Kalyambi Nanan's case. The present case involves filing of two applications. What ever be the circumstances, under which such applications came to be filed, in one application an order was passed as early as on 30/01/1999. Even if, it is the contention of the petitioner that he was totally unaware of the filing of O.P. (MV)260/1997, that will not help the petitioner in ignoring the order passed by the Lok Adalat. Since the petitioner himself admits the fact that there is a fraud played on the petitioner by the 2nd respondent, it is open for the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings in that regard.
Operative part
The relief prayed in the above writ petition is to quash Ext. P2 which in fact is a copy of the O.P.(MV) 260/1997 which lead to Ext. P3 award. In the light of what is stated above the challenge to Ext.P3 award cannot be sustained. It is open for the petitioner to execute Ext. P3 W.P.C.No.176 OF 2009 -3- award, since Ext. P1 award can be termed only as a nullity in the eye of law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.