JUDGMENT :

C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. The Kerala State Insurance Department, the third respondent in O.P. (MV) No. 2059/1995 of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Kozhikkode is the appellant. As per the award impugned dated 19.10.2005, the appellant/R3 stands directed to deposit the award amount, together with interest. The challenge is on the solitary premise that the vehicle in question - a car bearing Regn. No. KL-11/B-4314 - was not insured by the appellant/R3, wherefore, the liability fixed on the appellant to deposit the compensation amount is illegal and liable to be interfered with.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/R3 and the learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, the owner and driver respectively of the offending vehicle, were also heard. Perused the records.

3. Sri. E.C. Bineesh, learned counsel for the appellant/R3 submitted that at the relevant time, the vehicle in question was not issued with any insurance policy by the appellant. It is without looking into this aspect that the learned Tribunal has passed an award against the appellant. Learned counsel also pointed out that although there is delay in filing the instant appeal, the same stands condoned as per order of this Court dated 13.01.2017, upon payment of a cost of Rs. 2,000/-. Though not duty bound, the appellant produced an insurance policy, which would go to show that the vehicle in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company at the relevant time. The long and short of submission of the learned Government Pleader is that in the absence of a policy, the appellant should not be mulcted with the responsibility of paying compensation to the claim petitioner.

4. Advocate K.M. Firoz, learned counsel for the R1/claimant submitted that the award was passed on 19.10.2005 in respect of an accident which took place on 08.04.1995. With considerable delay of more than 3 years, the appellant filed an application for review before the Tribunal, which was dismissed as per order dated 13.10.2010. Even reckoned from that date, there is substantial delay of about 4 years in preferring the instant appeal, which is filed only in the year 2014.

5. Reckoned from the date of the impugned award, there is a delay of more than 8 years in preferring the instant appeal, which however, stands condoned by order dated 13.1.2007 of this Court upon payment of a paltry some of Rs.2,000, submits the learned counsel. Sri. K.M. Firoz then espoused the plight of the first respondent/claimant, occasioned only because of the callous negligence on the part of the appellant/R3. It was pointed out that the R1/claimant, who met with an accident in the year 1995 and who was favoured with an award in the year 2005 could not realise the compensation amount of Rs. 28,000/- together with interest even in the year 2022. Learned counsel submitted that if at all the appeal is to be allowed, the hardship, prejudice and jeopardy caused to the R1/claimant has to be compensated. Learned counsel further pointed out in this regard that the appellant/R3 had entered appearance before the Tribunal through Advocate K.M. Mathew, but did precious little thereafter. No written statement was filed denying the policy, even when the second respondent/owner (first respondent in the OP) of the vehicle admitted the policy with the appellant/insurance company, as claimed in the Original Petition. It was further pointed out that on the event of allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the Tribunal, this Court may clarify that the R1/claimant is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 21 of the Limitation Act, in the context of impleading the proper insurance company, as otherwise, a plea of limitation is most likely to be pressed into service by the insurance company being impleaded. It was also urged that equitable directions be given in the light of a probable argument pertaining to exoneration of payment of interest by the