SHAINAS Vs. PARVATHY L.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original petition is filed to direct the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(in short, 'Tribunal'), Thiruvananthapuram, to consider and dispose of Review Petition No.2830/2022 (Ext P3) in O.P. (MV)No.1121/2014, expeditiously, and until such time, to stay the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that he was the owner-cum-driver of the motor vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 25E 7772, which met with a road accident on 24/8/2014, causing injuries to the first respondent. The first respondent filed O.P.(MV)No.1121/2014 before the Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal, by Ext P2 common award, allowed the claim petition and directed the second respondent ' insurer ' to pay the compensation amount to the first respondent and recover it from the petitioner. The Tribunal passed the direction on the finding that the petitioner did not have a valid driving licence and therefore, there was violation of the insurance policy conditions. The petitioner asserts that there is an error apparent on the face of Ext P2 award, because the petitioner had a valid driving licence as on the date of accident which is reflected in Ext P1 driving licence particulars. Actually, Ext P1 was produced before the Tribunal and was marked as Ext B2 in evidence. However, the Tribunal failed to appreciate Ext B2 in its proper perspective. Even though the petitioner has preferred Ext P3 review petition before the Tribunal in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Santhoshkumar and Anr. [2021 KHC 747], the Tribunal is not considering the said application. On the contrary, the second respondent has initiated revenue recovery proceedings to recover the compensation amount from the petitioner. The inaction on the part of the Tribunal is causing severe prejudice and hardship to the petitioner. Hence, the original petition.

(3.) Heard; Sri. Liju.V.Stephen, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P.K. Manojkumar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent. As the second respondent has admitted the insurance policy, notice to the first respondent is dispensed with .