SIVANKUTTY Vs. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in an Original Petition on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram is the petitioner in this Original Petition. He filed O.P. (MV) No. 1566 of 1995 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident involving a motor vehicle. The O.P. was allowed and the petitioner was allowed to recover an amount of Rs. 22,250/- from the Insurance Company. Since the insurer did not pay the amount due under the award, the petitioner filed E.P. 463 of 2002 for attachment and sale of movable belonging to the Insurance Company. The Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal directed the petitioner to furnish the details of the movables which he seeks to attach. The petitioner was unable to furnish the details of those articles. So the execution petition was dismissed. That order is under challenge in this Original Petition.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal. It is submitted that in view of R. 394(1) and (2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the Tribunal cannot dismiss an execution petition on the ground that the petitioner in the Original Petition is not able to furnish the details of the movables kept in the office of Insurance Company.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is illegal and there is failure on the part of the Presiding Officer to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. It is argued that in view of the provisions contained in R.394(1) and (2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the Presiding Officer cannot dismiss an execution petition on the ground that the petitioner in the O.P. failed to furnish the details of the movables to be attached. R.394(1) and (2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules reads as follows: