Kerala High Court
Omanakuttan vs Annamma Varghese on 27 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
RP NO. 93 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2022 IN MACA NO.321 OF 2012 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/ADDL.APPELLANTS 2 TO 4:
1 ANNAMMA VARGHESE
W/O. LATE S.GEEVARGHESE, KANNATHIL HOUSE, PARUMALA.P.O,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-689626,
2 REMMITH SAM VARGHESE
S/O. LATE S.GEEVARGHESE, KANNATHIL HOUSE, PARUMALA.P.O,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-689626,
3 REMYA SARA VARGHESE
D/O.LATE S.GEEVARGHESE, KANNATHIL HOUSE, PARUMALA.P.O,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-689626,
BY ADVS. T.K.KOSHY V.V.RISANI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1 OMANAKKUTTAN,
VAZHAVELIL RAJ BHAVAN, PERUNNAI.P.O, PANACHICAVU,
CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN-686 102, PIN -
686102
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., CHANGANACHERRY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686104., PIN - 686104
BY ADVS. T.P.PRADEEP P.K.SATHEES KUMAR MINIKUMARY M.V.
R.K.PRASANTH JIJO JOSEPH
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2024,
ALONG WITH RP.365/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP 93/2023 & RP 365/2023
-2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
RP NO. 365 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2022 IN MACA NO.321 OF 2012
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.1:
OMANAKUTTAN
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O RAJAPPAN, VAZHAVELIL RAJ BHAVAN,
PERUNNAI P.O, PNACHICAVU, CHANGANACHERRY-, PIN - 686102
BY ADVS. T.P.PRADEEP P.K.SATHEES KUMAR MINIKUMARY M.V.
R.K.PRASANTH JIJO JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS NO.2-4 & RESPONDENT NO.2
1 ANNAMMA VARGHESE
W/O. LATE. S. GEEVARGHESE, KANNATHIL HOUSE, PARUMALA
P.O, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689626
2 REMMITH SAM VARGHESE
S/O LATE S. GEEVARGHESE, KANNATHIL HOUSE, PARUMALA P.O,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689626
3 REMYA SARA VARGESE
D/O LATE S. GEEVARGHESE, KANNATHIL HOUSE, PARUMALA P.O,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689626
4 THE BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., CHANGANACHERRY,
PIN - 686104
BY ADVS. T.K.KOSHY PMM.NAJEEB KHAN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.03.2024, ALONG WITH RP.93/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP 93/2023 & RP 365/2023
-3-
O R D E R
(Dated this the 27th day of March 2024)
(RP 93/2023 & RP 365/2023)
R.P.No.93 of 2023 is filed by the additional claimants
in M.A.C.A.No.321/2012 on the ground that there is error
apparent on the face of the record. R.P.No.365 of 2023 is
filed by the 1st respondent in M.A.C.A. aggrieved by the
judgment dated 25.11.2022.
2. The counsel points out that, in paragraph 4 of the
judgment, the name of the counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent is wrongly shown as MA George, in fact it is
P.M.M Najeeb Khan.
3. The counsel further argues that, while awarding
the interest on compensation for permanent disability the
same is excluded from the purview of interest. Therefore, he
seeks a review of the judgment.
4. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that
during the pendency of the appeal, the original claimant
died, and the legal heirs being the wife and children were
impleaded as additional appellants 2 to 4. But when the
judgment was pronounced, there was no apportionment
regarding the amounts due to the additional appellants 2 to
4.
5. The review petitioner was ex-parte before the
Tribunal and since the policy condition was violated as the
driving license was not produced from the side of the
driver, the Tribunal had directed the Insurance Company to
pay the amount and recover from the insured under Section
149(4) of the M.V Act. The review petitioner has filed this
review petition on the ground that he was having a valid
license at the time of accident on 03.04.2022. He has
produced Annexures A2 and A3 the badge and the extract
of the driving license, which show that the petitioner was
having a valid license as on the date of accident. The 2 nd
respondent Insurance Company does not dispute the same.
6. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal to the
extent that there is violation of policy condition is set aside
in view of the production of Annexures A2 and A3, and the
liberty given to the Insurance Company to recover the
amount from the 1st respondent is set aside. The liability to
pay the amounts rests on the Insurance Company and the 1 st
respondent is exonerated from the liability.
On going through the Petitions, I am of the view that
there is error apparent on the face of the record.
Accordingly, these Review Petitions stand allowed and the
judgment dated 25.11.2022 in M.A.C.A. No. 321 of 2012 is
recalled.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI
JUDGE
JS
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MACA NO. 321/2012
DATED 25/11/2022
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER BADGE BEARING BADGE NO.
KC/965/97 DATED 25/07/1997
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF DRIVING LICENSE ISSUED
BY SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, DATED 09/03/2023
