NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Vs. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, B.M. LAKSHMI NARASIMHAIAH AND NARAYANASWAMY B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MVC No. 4445/2009 filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner and two others, was allowed in part and the claimant/respondent No. 2 herein, was held entitled to payment of compensation of Rs. 1,62,000/ - with interest. Petitioner and the owner of the motor cycle bearing No. KA -43 -J -42 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the said compensation amount. The judgment and award passed in that regard is at Annexure -A. Petitioner filed an application, vide Annexure -J, to review the said judgment and award. Simultaneously, petitioner filed another application, vide Annexure -K, seeking condonation of delay in the matter of seeking review of the said judgment and award. The claimant filed objections, vide Annexure -L, to the review petition. No objection appears to have been filed to the application as at Annexure -K, seeking condonation of delay. The Tribunal having rejected the review application on 23.01.2012, vide order as at Annexure -M, this writ petition has been filed. Sri. S. Srishaila, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is illegal. He submitted that though separate application, vide Annexure -K, seeking condonation of delay was filed, the Tribunal has proceeded as if, no application seeking condonation of delay was filed. Learned counsel submitted that from the said finding it is clear that there is non -consideration of the matter in the correct perspective and the impugned order, which is contrary to the record, being vitiated, is liable to be set aside.

(2.) SMT . B.H. Sunitha, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand contended that there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment and award, as at Annexure -A and the review application filed being devoid of merit, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the review petition.

(3.) MVC No. 4445/2009 was decided on 22.03.2010, vide Annexure -A. Petitioner filed an application, vide Annexure -J seeking to review the judgment and award, as at Annexure -A. Simultaneously, the petitioner has filed separate application, vide Annexure -K, to condone the delay in filing the application for review of the judgment and award, as at Annexure -A. Despite such application being on record and there being no objection statement filed i.e., to Annexure -K, the Tribunal while rejecting the review petition, vide an order at Annexure -M, has found as follows: -