The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to quash Exhibits P11 and P17 orders passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, in O.P.(MV)No.53/97 and also seeking an order directing the said Tribunal to conduct an enquiry into the genesis of Exhibits P4 and P6 notices issued to the petitioner and the contents and legality of Exhibit P15 application filed by the 1st respondent and to take action under IPC against the manipulation of records and falsification of documents in the shape of Exhibits P4, P5 and P15 by the 1st respondent. 2. The 1st respondent herein had filed O.P.(MV)No.53/97 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, against respondents 2 and 3 herein, claiming compensation in respect of a motor vehicle accident alleged to have taken place at Elamkunnappuzha, on 23.12.1996. In Exhibit P1 application it is alleged that the 2nd respondent herein is the registered owner of the scooter bearing registration No.KL-7/B-4803 involved in the accident, and the 3rd respondent herein was rider of the scooter at the time of accident. It is stated in Exhibit P1 application that the Police, after investigation, filed Crime No.359/96 of Njarakkal Police Station, against respondents 2 and 3 herein. Before the Tribunal respondents 2 and 3 were set ex parte.
3. The Tribunal by Exhibit P2 award allowed O.P.(MV) No.53/97 allowing the 1st respondent herein to recover a sum of `15,500/-, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost, from respondents 2 and 3 herein, jointly and severally. In order to execute Exhibit P2 award, the 1st respondent herein filed E.P.No.53/01 and Exhibit P3 is a copy of the execution petition filed against respondents 2 and 3 herein. In Exhibit P1 claim petition, Exhibit P2 award and Exhibit P3 execution petition, the name and address of the owner of the scooter was shown as “T.K.Bose, S/o Kuttappan, Thattaruparambil House, Kottuvallikkad, Muthakunnam P.O., Paravur Taluk, Ernakulam District”. According to the petitioner, at some point of time, without any orders from the Tribunal, the name and address of the registered owner of the scooter was changed as “T.C.Bose, S/o Chandran, Thattaruparambil Veedu, East Madaplathuruthu, Muthakunnam P.O., North Paravur, Ernakulam District”, and after substituting the name and address of the petitioner, he was issued with Exhibit P5 notice in E.P.No.53/01, which was served on him in Exhibit P4 envelope. In Exhibit P5 notice the petitioner is shown as the 1st judgment debtor.
4. On receipt of Exhibit P5 notice, the petitioner entered appearance and filed Exhibit P6 objection pointing out that, he is not the judgment debtor in the case and that he 2nd respondent herein is the owner of the scooter involved in the accident. The petitioner has also filed Exhibit P7 counter affidavit in E.P.No.53/2001 raising similar contentions. Then the 1st respondent herein filed Exhibit P8 application seeking an order directing the petitioner to produce before the Tribunal his electoral card, ration card, etc. Pursuant to the said petition, the petitioner produced before the Tribunal Exhibit P9 electoral identity card and Exhibit P10 ration card, as per which, the name of the petitioner's father is “T.K.Chandran”. But, without considering those objections, the Tribunal by Exhibit P11 order rejected the petitioner’s contention that he is not the person against whom Exhibit P2 award has been passed by the Tribunal.
5. After Exhibit P11 order, the 1st respondent herein filed Exhibit P12 application for attachment and in the said application as well, the 2nd respondent herein is shown as the 1st judgment debtor. The Tribunal issued warrant of attachment of immovable property. Though, the Amin had gone to the address shown in the attachment petition, he had returned without effecting the attachment, since the decree holder failed to pay batta. Exhibit P13 is the report of the Amin to that effect. Thereafter, attachment warrant was again issued and the Amin had gone to the address shown in the warrant of attachment, but returned, as the house was locked and the judgment debtor has shifted his residence. Exhibit P14 is the report of the Amin to that effect. Thereafter, the 1st respondent herein has filed Exhibit P15 application in order to proceed against the petitioner and to that application, the petitioner has filed Exhibit P16 objection. In the said objection, the petitioner has also furnished the present address of the 2nd respondent herein as “Bose, S/o Kuttappan, Thattaruparambil House, Parvathuruthu, Parayakkad P.O., North Paravur'”. But, without considering the said objection, the Tribunal issued Exhibit P17 fresh order of attachment and it was in such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court in this Writ Petition.
6. While admitting the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay for a period of three months, on condition that the petitioner deposits `10,000/- before the Registry of this Court, within two weeks. Subsequently, by order in I.A.No.11784/2004, this Court extended the time for depositing the amount and thereafter, the petitioner deposited the said amount on 14.9.2004. In the Writ Petition, the present address of the 2nd respondent herein, the owner of the scooter is furnished as “Thattaruparambil House, Parvathuruthu, Parayakkad P.O., North Paravur'. Though, the 1st respondent entered appearance, none appeared for respondents 2 and 3, after service of notice. On 7.12.2005, this Court has also extended the interim stay until further orders.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent herein, contending that, the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent herein is one and the same person. According to the 1st respondent herein, the petitioner is the registered owner of the scooter involved in the accident and he was charge sheeted by the Njarakkal Police in Crime No.359/1996. When notice was issued to the petitioner in the duly registered address, it could not be served despite repeated efforts. As directed by the Tribunal, his correct address was collected and then only it was revealed that the correct name of the petitioner's father is “Chandran” and not “Kuttappan”, as erroneously shown in the Police records. According to the 1st respondent herein, while the petitioner was examined before the Tribunal as a witness in the execution petition he had admitted that, there is no other person named “Thattaruparambil Bose” and it was based on that admission, the Tribunal proceeded against the petitioner in Exhibits P11 and P17 orders.
8. As the main dispute is as to who is the registered owner of scooter bearing registration No.KL-7/B-4803, which was involved in the accident occurred on 23.12.1996, this Court by order dated 21.3.2014 impleaded the Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam, as additional 4th respondent and the learned Government Pleader was directed to get complete registration particulars regarding the ownership of the said scooter. Pursuant to the said order, the registration particulars of scooter bearing registration No.KL-7/B-4803 was produced by the learned Government Pleader as Exhibit R4(a), along with a statement dated 8.4.2014. As per Exhibit R4(a) registration particulars issued by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Aluva, the vehicle involved in the accident is a Priya Scooter, originally registered as PJC 7431, by the Registering Authority, Pathancote, and brought to the State of Kerala and registered as KL-07B-4803 on 1.7.1991, in the name of one “T.K.Bose, S/o T.V.Kuttappan, Thattaruparambil House, Muthakunnam P.O.”, which is the name and address of the 2nd respondent herein. It is further stated in Exhibit R4(a) that, the said scooter is still registered in the name of the said “T.K.Bose, S/o T.V.Kuttappan”, and the validity of registration certificate was only up to 21.8.1999.
9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the additional 4th respondent.
10. Now I shall consider the legality of Exhibits P11 and P17 orders passed by the Tribunal by which proceedings in execution of Exhibit P2 award were initiated against the petitioner.
11. As borne out from records, in Exhibit P1 claim petition, Exhibit P2 award and Exhibit P3 execution petition, the name and address of the 1st respondent/1st judgment debtor, the owner of the scooter, is that of the 2nd respondent herein. Though, in Exhibit P5 notice the name and address of the petitioner is shown as that of the 1st judgment debtor, there is nothing on record to indicate that such a change occurred based on any orders passed by the Tribunal. On receipt of Exhibit P5 notice, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P6 objection which was followed by Exhibit P7 counter affidavit. Thereafter, based on Exhibit P8 petition filed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner has produced Exhibit P9 electoral card and Exhibit P10 ration card, which make it abundantly clear that the petitioner is the son of one “T.K.Chandran”. On the other hand, the 1st respondent/1st judgment debtor in Exhibit P1 claim petition, Exhibit P2 award and Exhibit P3 execution petition is one “T.K.Bose, S/o Kuttappan”. In such circumstances, without any cogent and convincing evidence, the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the objection raised by the petitioner herein that, he is not the person against whom Exhibit P2 award has been passed by the Tribunal. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Exhibit P11 order, in order to reject the objection raised by the petitioner herein, is perverse and patently illegal, hence, liable to be set aside by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
12. Subsequent to Exhibit P11 order, the 1st respondent herein has filed Exhibit P12 attachment petition. In the said attachment petition as well, the 2nd respondent herein is shown as the 1st judgment debtor and as evident from Exhibits P13 and P15 reports filed by the Amin, attachment could not be effected as the house was closed and the judgment debtor has shifted his residence. It was thereafter, the 1st respondent herein has filed Exhibit P15 application, in order to proceed against the petitioner herein. To the said application, the petitioner herein has submitted Exhibit P16 objection, in which the present address of the 2nd respondent herein has also been mentioned. It was ignoring the said objection, the Tribunal has passed Exhibit P17 order, which order is also under challenge in this Writ Petition.
13. Going by Exhibit P1 claim petition, Exhibit P2 award and Exhibit P3 execution petition, the 2nd respondent herein is arrayed as the 1st respondent/1st judgment debtor, on the allegation that, he is the owner of the scooter involved in the accident. In Exhibit P12 attachment petition as well, the 2nd respondent herein is shown as the 1st judgment debtor. When the 1st respondent herein filed Exhibit P15 application, in order to proceed against the petitioner, he has submitted Exhibit P16 objection, in which the present address of the 2nd respondent herein was also mentioned. Ignoring the said objection, the Tribunal has passed Exhibit P17 order. None of the contentions raised by the petitioner herein are adverted to in Exhibit P17 order passed by the Tribunal. The said order, which is a cryptic order, is also vitiated by total non-application of mind. It is a single line order without stating any reasons whatsoever in order to reject the objection raised by the petitioner in Exhibit P16. When the petitioner herein has furnished the present address of the 2nd respondent herein, who is arrayed as the 1st judgment debtor in the E.P.No.53/2001, the Tribunal ought to have conducted a proper enquiry as to the identity of the owner of the scooter involved in the accident. Now, as borne out from the R4 (a) registration particulars, the vehicle involved in the accident is registered in the Joint Regional Transport Office, Aluva, on 1.7.1991, in the name of one “T.K.Bose, S/o T.V.Kuttappan, Thattaruparambil House, Muthakunnam P.O.”, which is the name and address of the 2nd respondent herein, and the said registration was valid up to 21.8.1999. While proceeding with E.P.No.53/2001, the Tribunal being an execution court cannot go beyond Exhibit P2 award. Exhibit P17 order passed by the Tribunal is vitiated by total non-application of mind and on that sole reason the same is liable to be set aside by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction.
14. In the result, Exhibits P11 and P17 orders passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal of E.P.No.53/2001 and also Exhibits P12 and P15 applications. The Tribunal shall pass reasoned orders on E.P.No.53/2001 as well as in Exhibits P12 and P15 applications, after adverting to all the contentions raised by both sides. The Tribunal shall pass orders, as directed above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of five months from the date of receipt of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, with notice to both sides.
15. As the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal, all the contentions raised by both sides, including the contention raised by the petitioner regarding the alleged manipulation of records and falsification of documents are left open. It will be open to both sides to raise all such contentions before the Tribunal. It is made clear that, the findings entered in this judgment concerning the merits of the case are only for the limited purpose to decide as to whether this Court should interfere with the matter in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal will be free to proceed with the matter and take a decision independently, untrammelled by any such findings.
16. The Registry shall transfer `10,000/- deposited by the petitioner before this Court, pursuant to the conditional order of stay granted in this Writ Petition, to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, which amount the Tribunal shall keep in deposit till the passing of orders in the matter as directed above. If the petitioner herein ultimately succeeds, he shall be entitled for refund of the said amount of `10,000/-.
Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
dsn Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE