The petitioner, a Corporation under the State, seeks to review the judgment passed on 03.10.2012. Admittedly O.P.(M.V.). No.1179 of 2002 was filed in the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha by the claimant, who was injured in an accident in which the vehicle of the review petitioner was involved. The award was passed on 24.10.2007 for an amount of Rs.14,000/- [Rupees fourteen thousand only] with 6% interest. 2. In 2012, the claimant was before this Court, contending that even after 10 years of the accident, no money has come to him. The Corporation appeared before this Court and undertook that the Corporation is willing to pay the amount due to the petitioner-claimant as per the award, within a period of two months from the date of the judgment in the writ petition. The review petition has been filed on the ground that there is an insurance for the vehicle, which was involved in the accident and, hence, the review petitioner would not have the liability. The specific contention RP.1089 of 2012 in - 2 -
WPC.22938 of 2012 taken is that, the fact that a valid insurance having been taken out in the year 2001, for the vehicle, was not in the knowledge of the Corporation in 2012, when the writ petition was disposed of.
3. If a valid insurance policy was available, then necessarily the same ought to have been produced before the Tribunal, before which the case was pending for almost five years. Subsequently even after the award was passed, for another five years the review petitioner obviously has not done anything to approach the Tribunal for setting aside the award or file a review thereon. In the review petition also, there is no contention with respect to a petition having been filed before the Tribunal for setting aside the award and for reconsideration of the liability; nor does the review petitioner make any averment with respect to an appeal having been filed. If there was an insurance policy as produced at Annexure-A and it was not produced before the Tribunal, then definitely it points to the inefficiency of the officers of the Corporation. The Corporation which time and again claims financial stringency in paying even the pension to its employees, has behaved with abject levity and absolute callousness in contesting a RP.1089 of 2012 in - 3 -
WPC.22938 of 2012 claim before the Tribunal, which the Corporation was indemnified against; by a valid insurance policy. The Corporation ought to have initiated action against the officers who are responsible for the irresponsible conduct of the case.
4. Having not produced the policy before the Tribunal when the case was pending or attempted to file a review on that count, the petitioner claims here that the discovery of the existence of that policy should lead to the undertaking given by it in 2012, to be reviewed. This Court would have normally mulcted the Corporation with exemplary costs, but would not do so, only for reason of not wanting to further encumber an already tottering white elephant.
In such circumstances, the Review Petition would stand dismissed.
vku/-
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge ( true copy )