Settlement out of court does not prevent rightful claimants from receiving due compensation when payment is evidenced.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges the order dated 27.03.2023 in I.A.

No.2 of 2020 in I.A.No.4507 of 2007 in OP(MV) No.1106 of 2001 and the order in I.A.No.4507 of 2007 in OP(MV) No.1106 of 2001 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara.

2. The petitioner submits that respondents 2 to 5 herein filed a claim petition claiming compensation on account of the death of the husband of the second respondent and the father of the remaining respondents, in which the Tribunal was pleased to pass an award for Rs. 5,43,008/- with interest. Since the award amount was not remitted by the petitioners, respondents 2 to 5 filed I.A.No.4507 of 2007 to initiate revenue recovery proceedings for the realisation of the award amount.

3. Petitioners contend that when they received notice of the above application, they approached the claimants and the matter was settled out of court for an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Pursuant to the said settlement, the petitioners, along with other witnesses, went to the office of Adv. P. Bhaskaran, who was appearing on behalf of the claimants and had paid Rs.6,00,000/- to him. Thereafter, there was some difference of opinion between the claimants and Adv. P.Bhaskaran, which resulted in the claimants not receiving the money paid by the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners filed I.A.No.2 of 2020 in I.A.No.4507 of 2007 to record full satisfaction and also to recall the notices issued under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act.

4. An enquiry was conducted in the I.A., and the claimants did depose that money was, in fact, paid by the petitioners herein to the Advocate concerned. The same was again reiterated in the cross- examination. After that, the matter was posted for hearing on several occasions and on 27.03.2023, when the matter was posted, since the counsel for the petitioners could not appear, I.A. No.2 of 2020 was dismissed for default, and consequently, I.A.No.4507 of 2007 was allowed. Petitioner submits that he could not appear due to illness and has produced Ext.P7 medical certificate.

5. It is seen that evidence was recorded in I.A.No.2 of 2020, and it was clearly stated that the amounts were paid by the petitioners to Adv. P. Bhaskaran. The same was again reiterated by the claimants in cross-examination. Under such circumstances, appropriate orders should have been passed by the Tribunal on I.A.No.2 of 2020.

6. Accordingly, I am inclined to set aside the order dated

27.03.2023 in I.A. No.2 of 2020 and also the order in I.A.No.4507 of 2007, which directs the revenue recovery proceedings to be continued. Exts.P5 and P6 orders are set aside with a direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to pass fresh orders in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in I.A.No.4507 of 2007 in OP(MV) No.1106 of 2001 based on the evidence already adduced, after hearing both sides and in accordance with law. Orders, as directed above, shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Based on the orders in the I.A.No.2 of 2020, the Tribunal shall consider the request made in I.A.No.4507 of 2007,if necessary.

OP(MAC) is allowed as above.

Sd/-