The National Insurance Company Limited vs The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—MVC No. 4445/2009 filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner and two others, was allowed in part and the claimant/respondent No. 2 herein, was held entitled to payment of compensation of Rs. 1,62,000/- with interest. Petitioner and the owner of the motor cycle bearing No. KA-43-J-42 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the said compensation amount. The judgment and award passed in that regard is at Annexure-A. Petitioner filed an application, vide Annexure-J, to review the said judgment and award. Simultaneously, petitioner filed another application, vide Annexure-K, seeking condonation of delay in the matter of seeking review of the said judgment and award. The claimant filed objections, vide Annexure-L, to the review petition. No objection appears to have been filed to the application as at Annexure-K, seeking condonation of delay. The Tribunal having rejected the review application on 23.01.2012, vide order as at Annexure-M, this writ petition has been filed. Sri. S. Srishaila, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is illegal. He submitted that though separate application, vide Annexure-K, seeking condonation of delay was filed, the Tribunal has proceeded as if, no application seeking condonation of delay was filed. Learned counsel submitted that from the said finding it is clear that there is non-consideration of the matter in the correct perspective and the impugned order, which is contrary to the record, being vitiated, is liable to be set aside.

Smt. B.H. Sunitha, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand contended that there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment and award, as at Annexure-A and the review application filed being devoid of merit, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the review petition.

Perused the writ record.

MVC No. 4445/2009 was decided on 22.03.2010, vide Annexure-A. Petitioner filed an application, vide Annexure-J seeking to review the judgment and award, as at Annexure-A. Simultaneously, the petitioner has filed separate application, vide Annexure-K, to condone the delay in filing the application for review of the judgment and award, as at Annexure-A. Despite such application being on record and there being no objection statement filed i.e., to Annexure-K, the Tribunal while rejecting the review petition, vide an order at Annexure-M, has found as follows:-

Moreover, the application filed by the respondent company cannot be entertained on the ground of limitation also for the simple that the award was passed on 22.03.2010. The Insurance Company has filed application to review the order only on 03.10.2011 after 1 year 6 months. Absolutely there is no explanation for delay in filing the review petition. The respondent company has also not filed any application to condone the delay. On this ground also, application is not maintainable....

The extracted portion, supra, makes it clear that the Tribunal has failed to consider the record of the case before it. There being no dispute with regard to filing of the application seeking condonation of delay, vide Annexure-K, finding of the Tribunal that the review petitioner has not filed any application to condone the delay is illegal. The record of the case has not been perused and the impugned order having been casually passed in disregard of the record, is unsustainable. The Tribunal ought to have carefully examined the record, considered the rival contentions and then decided the matter. The findings in the order as at Annexure-M being perverse, the same warrants interference.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, as at Annexure-M is quashed. Consequently, the Tribunal has to decide the matter vide Annexures - J and K afresh. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.12.2013 and receive further orders. The Tribunal is directed to reconsider the matter and decide the applications vide Annexures - J and K, in accordance with law, expeditiously and before 28.02.2014.

Registry is directed to return the LCR to the Tribunal forthwith, so as to enable the Tribunal to take up the matter on its board, on 17.12.2013.

No costs.