The petitioner, in the above original petitions, is the owner and Driver of the vehicle, which was involved in an accident, in which three persons were injured. The three persons filed separate claim petitions, which are the subject matter of the above original petitions. Admittedly, the petitioner was issued with notice. But, however, the petitioner did not appear; according to the petitioner, on a bonafide belief that the claim would be insured by the Insurance Company. 2. The Insurance Company, however, raised a ground of violation of policy conditions. In such circumstance, the petitioner, the driver and owner of the vehicle, not being able to counter the said submission, the Tribunal found that the insurer is absolved from its liability and mulcted the same on the registered owner. The Insurance Company has paid the amounts and is now seeking recovery, the proceedings in which are challenged in each of the original petitions.
OP(MAC) 163/2014 & Con. cases : 2 :
3. The violation of policy conditions projected before the Tribunal was with respect to the vehicle involved in the accident having no fitness certificate. In the present original petition the petitioner has produced a fitness certificate which is said to be current and valid during the time of the accident. Though this Court would not look into the contention as such, on a prima facie consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner could be directed to prove it before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
4. Normally this Court would have relegated the petitioner to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to urge the petitions filed for setting aside the ex-parte award as also for considering the petition for condonation of delay. This Court however, would consider the applications itself, based on the prima facie consideration on the merits made herein above. That would save time of the Tribunal too. The applications can be allowed, but, however, only on terms. The petitioner is mulcted with a cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) in each of the original petitions; half of the amount shall be paid to the Insurance Company and the other half to the Kerala Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
5. On the petitioner producing the evidence/receipt OP(MAC) 163/2014 & Con. cases : 3 :
as to the payments made respectively to the respondent Insurance Company as also the Kerala Mediation and Conciliation Centre, before the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall allow the application for condonation of delay as also the application for setting aside the ex-parte award. However, the ex-parte award shall be set aside, only to the extent of the liability and no notice need be issued to the claimants. The Tribunal shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence to substantiate the ground of violation of policy and then consider the question of liability, as between the insurer and the registered owner. It is made clear that the reopening shall be only to that extent and if the above conditions are not complied with, the applications filed shall stand dismissed.
Recovery proceedings shall be stayed till the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal arrives at a finding on the liability.
Writ Petition disposed of with costs as indicated above.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge