NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD Vs. THANKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, the third respondent in O.P.(MV) No.604 of 2008 has filed this original petition challenging Exhibit P6 common order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. As per the common order, the Tribunal has declined to condone the delay of 371 days in preferring a review petition.

(2.) THE respondent is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.604 of 2008 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. ('MACT' for short). She had claimed compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident. The Tribunal as per Exhibit P1 Award granted an amount of 40,000/ - as compensation. The contention of the petitioner is that, the Award was passed relying upon a wound certificate that related to the Auto Rickshaw driver who had also sustained injuries in the accident, and not to the respondent who was the passenger. It is also contended that, the mistake was not noticed immediately. Later on, when the mistake was noticed, a review petition was preferred along with a petition for condonation of delay. The counsel for the respondent has conceded that the review could be heard as sought for by the petitioner. According to the counsel for the petitioner, in spite of the above concession, the delay was not condoned.

(3.) HEARD . The petitioner is a Government Company and a public sector undertaking. It has got a Legal Department and trained personnel to assist its activities. If the mistake, that is alleged to have occurred in the present case was not detected at the appropriate time, it is for the organisation to enquire, to identify the reasons and to rectify them. The delay involved is more than a year, as much as 371 days. The case was contested by the petitioner. In a contested matter, if the mistake had not been noticed either at the time of admission or immediately on obtaining a copy of the Award, that only speaks of pathetic state of efficiency in the organisation of the petitioner. Though the counsel for the respondent had conceded that the review could be allowed, the review was not maintainable unless the MACT condoned the enormous delay of 371 days in preferring the review petition. The MACT was not satisfied that the delay had been satisfactorily explained. It is for the said reason that the MACT has declined to condone the delay. The counsel has not been able to point out any error in the order, Exhibit P3 or a flaw in the reasoning adopted by the MACT. I find no grounds to interfere with Exhibit P6. For the above reasons, this original petition is dismissed.