1 2 MOHANAN PILLAI v. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD

BY ADV.SRI.LAL K JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL SRI.SREEJITH V.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(MAC) No.176 of 2023 :2: J U D G M E N T Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2024 The petitioners, who are respondents 1 and 2 in O.P.(MV) No.1586 of 2011 on the file of the 3rd Additional District Court / Additional MACT, Thrissur, have approached this Court filing OP(MAC) seeking to direct the Additional MACT, Thrissur to dispose of I.A.No.12090 of 2019 in O.P.(MV) No.1586 of 2011 and Ext.P6 as expeditiously as possible, within a time limit fixed by this Court exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioners state that the claim petition was filed by the claimant injured in an accident, contending that he sustained injuries in a motor accident occurred on 30.07.2009. The Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the petitioners. As a matter of fact, the 2nd petitioner had effective and valid driving licence at OP(MAC) No.176 of 2023 :3: the time of accident and hence the recovery right given to the 1st respondent is illegal and improper, contend the petitioners.

3. Coming to know about the Award of the Tribunal, the petitioners filed a petition to set aside the Award against the petitioners and to stay the recovery proceedings on the basis of the Award. Unfortunately, the petition for setting aside ex-parte order was dismissed for default. The petitioners, thereafter filed application to set aside the dismissal and now I.A is restored back as per order in R.P No.26 of 2023.

4. The petitioners state that in the meanwhile, taking advantage of the dismissal order, the 1st respondent has initiated recovery measures invoking Revenue Recovery proceedings. Unless Ext.P3-I.A.No.12090 of 2019 is considered by the Tribunal at the earliest and orders passed, the petitioners will be put to untold hardship and loss. Pending consideration of I.A.No.12090 of 2019, if revenue recovery is proceeded with, the petitioners will be put to irreparable loss, contend the petitioners. OP(MAC) No.176 of 2023 :4:

5. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the 1st respondent and resisted the OP(MAC). The Standing Counsel denied all the averments made by the petitioners in the OP(MAC). The 2nd petitioner had no driving license at the time of occurrence of the accident. Therefore, the petitioners were liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant. Following the principles of Pay and Recovery, the Tribunal has burdened the Insurance Company with making payment and to recover the same from the petitioners. The Insurance Company has already paid the amount to the claimant. Therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to get the amount recovered from the petitioners through Revenue Recovery proceedings. There is no situation warranting interference by this Court in the Revenue Recovery proceedings, pointed out the Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent.

6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing the OP(MAC) No.176 of 2023 :5: 1st respondent. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 2 and 3.

7. The specific case of the petitioners is that the 2 nd petitioner had valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The issue as to whether the 2nd petitioner had a valid driving licence is a question of fact, which can indeed be considered by the Tribunal. The petitioners have filed Ext.P3-I.A.No.12090 of 2019 before the Tribunal. The I.A. was filed as early in the year 2019. It is true that the I.A was dismissed for default earlier. The fact remains that the I.A. stands restored to files, consequent to the petitioners filing R.P. Now, as I.A.No.12090 of 2019 is pending, it would be only appropriate that the Tribunal consider the I.A and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law.

8. In the facts of the case, the OP(MAC) is disposed of directing the 3rd Additional District Court, Thrissur / 2nd Additional MACT, Thrissur to consider Ext.P3 I.A.No.12090 of 2019 in OP(MV) No.1586 of 2011 filed by the petitioners and pass OP(MAC) No.176 of 2023 :6: appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks. Coercive proceedings pursuant to the Award shall stand deferred for a period of six weeks. It is made clear that this Court has not pronounced anything on the merit of the claim made by the petitioners. Sd/- JUDGE N. NAGARESH OP(MAC) No.176 of 2023 :7: APPENDIX OF OP (MAC) 176/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P5(a) Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE ADDITIONAL MACT, THRISSUR IN OP (MV) NO.1586/2011 DATED 20.02.2019 TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A NO.12090/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS FOR SETTING ASIDE EXPARTE AWARD TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN E.A NO.54/2020 IN E.P. NO.162/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE IN FORM NO.10 UNDER SECTION 34 OF REVENUE RECOVERY ACT BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK DATED 19.03.2021 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.1 UNDER SECTION 7 OF REVENUE RECOVERY ACT BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK DATED 19.03.2021 TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN I.A. NO.1/2020 IN O.P (MV) NO.1586/2011 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN R.P. NO.26/2023 IN O.P. (MV) NO.1586/2011 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P.(MAC) NO. 91/2021 DATED 23.09.2021