This review petition is filed by third parties seeking to recall the judgment dated 10/09/2013 in O.P.(MAC) No.3769 of 2012. Since the review petitioners were not parties to the proceedings, this review petition is filed after seeking leave which was allowed by this Court as per order dated 13/02/2014 in I.A.No.20 of 2014.
2. By the judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court directed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad to initiate proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 394 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules against the legal heirs of the deceased Claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1105 of 1993 and to recall the amount with interest which was wrongfully paid in favour of the said claimant. There was also a direction to the MACT to recover such amount from the amounts payable to the petitioners in O.P(MV) No.1010 of 2005. The petitioners herein are the legal heirs of the deceased claimant in O.P(MV) No.1105 of 1993. This Court had also indicated that such steps have to be taken against the petitioners after notice to them.
3. The main contention urged by the review petitioners is that since this Court had already come to a conclusion that MACT is entitled to recover the said amount from the legal heirs of the deceased claimant, they will not get an opportunity to contend that they have no obligation to pay the said amount from the amounts awarded in O.P(MV) No.1010 of 2005. It is contended that the compensation awarded in O.P(MV) No.1010 of 2005 is not an estate of the deceased, liable for restitution. In that view of the matter, a blanket direction to recover the amount from the compensation amount awarded in O.P.(MV) No.1010 of 2005 is bad in law, is the contention of the review petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment of this Court in Omana v. Francis Edward [2011 (4) KLT 952]. In that case, a learned Single Judge of this Court considered the question whether an amount awarded in favour of the claimants in a Motor Accident case is attachable in execution of a decree. This Court found that since the compensation awarded is under the head “compensation for loss of dependency and estate” the said sum representing loss of dependency is not attachable as it does not form part of loss of estate. Apparently, such a contention was not considered since the petitioners were not parties to the proceedings. Therefore, I am of the view that the contentions urged by the review petitioners cannot be foreclosed and therefore, they should also be heard in respect of the above contentions as well. But, for that reason, a review of the judgment is not called for. It would suffice that necessary clarification is issued.
Accordingly, while disallowing the review petition, it is clarified that the MACT shall also consider the above contention urged by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr