Rajan P v. Mohanan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/27TH PHALGUNA, 1936 OP (MAC).No. 34 of 2015 (O) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1529/2006 of M.A.C.T., THALASSERY DATED 08-11-2013 PETITIONER(S):

----------------------

1. RAJAN P, S/O KURUVAN, PALAKANDI VEEDU P.O PAYAM, KANNUR DISTRICT (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO. KL-13/C-7104)

2. MUJEEB RAHIMAN P, S/O EBRAHIM, PANKKADU HOUSE, P.O PAYAM PERUMPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT.

(DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO. KL-13/C- 7104) BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN SRI.E.B.SHIVANANDAN SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS:

1. MOHANAN, S/O KUNJIRAMAN NAMBIAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, KADANKODAN HOUSE PADIYOUR AMSOM, OORATHUR DESOM ALATHUPARAMBA P.O, KOSHUMVAYAL, KANNUR (CLAIMANT IN IO (MV) 1529/2006)

2. THE MANAGER M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED P.B NO. 97, NARANGAPURAM P.O, THALASSERY (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO. KL-13-C-7104) R BY SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,UNITED INDIA INSU THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP (MAC).No. 34 of 2015 (O) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1 COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 8.11.13 IN OP(MV) 1529/2006, PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION 5066/14 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RECOVER THE AWARD AMOUNT FROM THE PETITIONERS.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A to Judge SB

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

===================== O.P.(M.A.C) No.34 of 2015 - O ====================== Dated this the 18th day of March, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner contends that the liability mulcted on the petitioner as per Ext.P1 order would be inconsistent with the declaration of law of the Full Bench reported in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Jisha [2015(1) KLT 1]. However, Ext.P1 is an appealable order, which remedy, the petitioner has not availed till date, despite the award having been passed on 08.11.2013. Definitely, that would be a valid contention in appeal. But, however, without challenging Ext.P1, there can be no invocation of the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is relegated to the appellate remedy, if so advised.

The writ petition would stand dismissed.

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // true copy // P.A to Judge