Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14707
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ANUP SIVADAS,
– Appellant
Versus
I.R,BIJU – Respondent
OP (MAC) 140 2022
SMRUTHI SASIDHARAN, V.P.BRIJESH, ASWATHY AMBY
A Tribunal must expeditiously consider pending applications to ensure fairness, particularly in recovery proceedings related to ex parte awards.
Headnote:
Motor Accidents - Original Petition - Recovery Proceedings - Directive to Tribunal - Delayed Applications
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings initiated post an award from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and seeks to delay these proceedings until the Tribunal considers delayed applications to set aside the ex parte order.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that recovery proceedings should be deferred until the Tribunal addresses pending applications, emphasizing the need for timely judicial consideration of such matters.
Issues: Whether recovery proceedings should be stayed until the Tribunal resolves the pending applications filed by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that pending applications before a tribunal must be addressed promptly, thereby necessitating the deferment of recovery actions arising from prior awards.
Final Decision: Recovery proceedings against the petitioner are deferred until the Tribunal decides on the pending applications.
JUDGMENT
The above Original Petition is filed with the following prayers:
“(i) To direct the Hon'ble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda, that all proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P3 I.A.No.3/2021 in O.P.(MV)No.1000/2017 may be kept in abeyance till the disposal of Exhibit P4 & P5 which is pending before the Hon'ble MACT, Irinjalakuda.
(ii) Issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iii) Shall dispense with the translation of the vernacular documents.”[SIC]
2. The petitioner suffered Ext.P1 award from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The petitioner submitted Exts.P4 and P5 applications before the Tribunal to set aside the ex parte order and to condone the delay in filing the same. In the meanwhile, recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Hence this Original petition is filed.
3. Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. No notice is necessary to respondents 1 and 2 at this stage and if they are aggrieved by the order passed by this Court, they are free to file a review petition before this Court.
4. The limited prayer of the petitioner is to consider Exts.P4 and P5 by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the Insurance Company already paid the amount and the recovery is based on the requisition from the 3rd respondent. In the light of the pendency of Exts.P4 and P5, I think the Tribunal can be directed to consider those applications within a time frame and till then the recovery proceedings can be deferred.
Therefore, this O.P.(MAC) is disposed of in the following manner:
i. There will be a direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P4 and P5, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
ii. Till final orders are passed as directed above, all further proceedings against the petitioner based on Ext.P1 award is deferred.
