VAISAKH A NAIR Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No.1753/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad ('Tribunal', in short), filed by him against the respondents for compensation. On 29/11/2017, the bus bearing No: KL-15-9579, belonging to the 1st respondent, driven by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent, collided with the bus in which the petitioner was travelling, and he suffered serious injuries. The Kongadu Police registered a crime and filed their charge sheet before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court-II, Palakkad, against the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company objected to the claim petition on the ground that the petitioner had earlier filed O.P(MV) No.712/2018 before the same Tribunal, and the claim was settled by Ext.P5 award passed by the District Legal Services Committee, Palakkad ('DLSA', in short). Therefore, O.P.(M.V.) No.1753/2018 ('Ext.P2 claim petition', in short) is to be dismissed. The petitioner has not filed O.P.No.712/2018. On enquiry, the petitioner learnt that the claim petition was filed in the name of the petitioner through one Advocate K.Jelly, claiming Rs.40,000.00 as compensation. Ext.P5 award is non-est factum and is perse illegal. Ext.P5 award has been passed by adopting fraudulent methods by some person by impersonating the petitioner. Ext.P5 award is liable to be set aside.

(2.) The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the writ petition. It is contended that the petitioner had not suffered any injuries as alleged in the writ petition. The petitioner cannot file a second claim petition after the first claim petition was settled in the Lok Adalat. The petitioner's sole intention is to unlawfully enrich himself. O.P. No.712/2018 contains the same documents produced in the subsequently filed Ext.P2 claim petition. Ext.P5 award is signed by a Judicial Officer, an Advocate Member, the petitioner and his counsel and the official of the Insurance Company and their Counsel. Therefore, to say that such an award is fabricated is unbelievable. It is also difficult to accept the contention that the petitioner had not entrusted the case to any other Advocate. The writ petition is an abuse of process of law and may be dismissed.

(3.) When the writ petition came up for hearing on 13/1/2025, this Court, considering the seriousness and gravity of the allegations in the writ petition, called for the records in O.P.No.712/2018. The Tribunal was also directed to defer all further proceedings in the Ext.P2 claim petition.