High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-07-30Writ petition disposed of with conditions: Exts...

B. Sasikumar Guruvayo or AMSOM and Balakrishna Transport v. Prema, Silin, Lakshmi, Kalyani, The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, and The New India Assurance Company Ltd

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.5682/2008

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2021-07-30
Court Decision / Holding: Exts. P5 and P7 are set aside on condition of deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs before the MACT, Thrissur, within four weeks; if deposit is made, the execution court will consider the petitioners’ case afresh, permit them to adduce evidence, and decide the claim expeditiously, within six weeks from the date of deposit. If the deposit is not made, the proceedings will continue from Exts. P5 and P7; the execution court is directed to dispose of the execution proceedings within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The registry will forward a copy of the judgment to the execution court forthwith. The judgment cites the Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Others (SC) as a guiding authority for speedy disposal of execution proceedings.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with conditions: Exts. P5 and P7 set aside on deposit of Rs.2 lakhs within four weeks; upon deposit, Tribunal to rehear and decide promptly; if not deposited, proceedings continue from Exts. P5 and P7; Tribunal to dispose within four months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

B. Sasikumar Guruvayoor AMSOM
B. Nandakumar (Partner Balakrishna Transport)

Respondents

Prema (W/o Late Ramachandran)
Silin (S/o Late Ramachandran)
Lakshmi (D/o Late Ramachandran)
Kalyani (W/o Viruthipparambil Kochakkan)
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur
The New India Assurance Company Ltd (Addl.R6)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Anil Sivaramar
• Sri Harikrishnan Ravindran

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Mable C. Kurian (Govt Pleader)
• Sri Lal K. Joseph (SC, Insurance Company)
• Sri K. Jayakumar
• Sri P.B. Krishnan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court judgment, delivered by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan on 30 July 2021, concerns a writ petition filed against orders in execution proceedings arising from a MACT award. Respondents 1–4 had obtained an award in OP(MV) 953/1985 from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The High Court had previously modified the award by its 21 March 1997 judgment in MFA No. 803 of 1988, holding that the insurer was liable only to the extent of the statutory Act liability while Balakrishna Transport (the insured) remained liable to pay the balance of Rs. 95,000 with interest and costs. When execution petitions (Ext. P4, etc.) were filed by the respondents, the petitioners challenged Exts. P5 and P7, asserting maintainability issues and other contentions raised in Ext. P6. The court notes the long pendency, remarking that execution remained stayed and urging expedition. It directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs before the Tribunal to quash Exts. P5 and P7, with a fresh opportunity to adduce evidence if deposited, and a prompt disposal timetable. The court also invoked the Supreme Court’s Rahul S. Shah decision to stress immediate disposal of execution proceedings. The matter was disposed with conditions for deposit and subsequent conduct of the proceedings.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended, in Ext. P6, a series of contentions challenging Exts. P5 and P7; they argued that the maintainability of the execution petition had not been properly decided and that, if given an opportunity, they could establish they were not liable to pay. They urged that Exts. P5 and P7 be quashed, and sought an opportunity to present evidence before the execution court, asserting bonafides and challenging liability. They also pressed for relief in light of a Supreme Court precedent. Respondents had sought continuation of the execution process with the award in view of the underlying liability.

Contentions of Respondents

The document records that counsel for petitioners raised the above contentions in Ext. P6; it does not provide a detailed account of separate arguments by respondents, but indicates that the respondents’ case was advanced through the execution petitions and the earlier orders, with the petitioners seeking quashing of Exts. P5 and P7. The court’s decision references the respondents’ earlier award and the appellate modification, guiding the brief framework for adjudication.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Others	2021 (4) KHC 148 (SC)	Positive	Cited as an authoritative Supreme Court decision that informs the imperative of prompt disposition of execution proceedings; it is invoked by the Kerala High Court to direct expeditious handling of the MACT-related execution.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against B. Sasikumar Guruvayo or AMSOM and Balakrishna Transport v. Prema, Silin, Lakshmi, Kalyani, The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, and The New India Assurance Company Ltd and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 5682 OF 2008** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 935/1985 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR EC ACT CASES & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,TSR,** ## **THRISSUR** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 B.SASIKUMAR GURUVAYOOR AMSOM, GURUVAYUR DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 2 B.NANDAKUMAR PARTNER BALAKRISHNA TRANSPORT, GURUVAYUR. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN SRI.HARIKRISHNAN RAVINDRAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 PREMA, W/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAN, VIRUTHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MATATHUR VILLAGE, KODALI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT IRINJALAKUDA. 2 SILIN S/O.LATE RAMACHANDRAN -DO3 LAKSHMI D/O.LATE RAMACHANDRAN -DO4 KALYANI W/O.VIRUTHIPARAMBIL KOCHAKKAN MOTHER OF LATE RAMACHANDRAN. 5 THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR. **2** ## **W.P.(C).No.5682/2008** ADDL.R6 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD ERNAKULAM BRANCH REP. BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REGIONAL OFFICER, KANDANKULATHIL TOWERS, MG ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-11 ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.07.2021 IN IA 1/2021. BY ADV.SMT.MABLE C.KURIAN, GOVT.PLEADER, ADV.LAL.K.JOSEPH, SC, INSURANCE COMPANY SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** The case number of Special Court occurring in the cause title of judgment dated 30.07.2021 in WP(C) 5682/2008(B) is corrected as OPMV 953/1985 as per order dated 27.08.2021 in IA 3/2021 in WP(C) 5682/2008(B). **sd/Assistant Registrar** **W.P.(C).No.5682/2008** **3** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------W.P.(C).No.5682 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 30[th] day of July, 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** Respondent Nos.1 to 4, who obtained an award from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, is trying to execute the same to get the entire compensation amount. Three and half decades over after they filed the claim petition. Even now the matter is not finally disposed. This Court stayed the execution proceedings in 2008. The matter is pending before this Court for about 13 years. Is it a failure of our system ? An introspection may be necessary. I don't want to make any further observation on this. 2. The short facts are like this: Respondents 1 to 4 obtained an award in OP(MV) No.953/1985 from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The award was modified by this Court as per judgment dated 21.03.1997 in M.F.A.No.803 of 1988. This **W.P.(C).No.5682/2008** **4** Court found that the insurance company is liable only to the extent of the Act liability so far as the 3[rd] parties are concerned and the insured M/s.Balakrishna Transport, Guruvayoor is liable to pay the balance of Rs.95,000/- with proportionate interest and costs. When Ext.P1 execution petition was filed by the claimants, who are respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, the petitioners filed Ext.P3 series raising several contentions. Subsequently execution petition was dismissed for default and thereafter Ext.P4 was filed. According to the petitioners, their prayer to decide the maintainability of Execution Petition was not decided properly. Ultimately Ext.P5 order was passed. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 review and the same was also dismissed as per Ext.P7 order. Hence this writ petition. 3. The impugned orders in this writ petition are Exts.P5 and P7. According to the petitioners, they received notice from the execution court and they appeared before the execution court. They were not able to appear before the execution court on 21.08.2007 due to certain reasons mentioned in Ext.P6 application. The execution court, on 21.08.2007, passed the following order: **W.P.(C).No.5682/2008** **5** _“Respondent has not produced evidence. Heard. Allowed. Issues certified.”_ Thereafter the petitioners filed Ext.P6 application to review the order. The same was dismissed as per Ext.P7 order on 30.07.2007. Challenging Exts.P5 and P7, this writ petition is filed. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondents. The counsel for the petitioners raised the same contentions in Ext.P6 application. The counsel submitted that if an opportunity is given to the petitioners, they will be able to convince the execution court that they are not liable to pay the amount. Several contentions are raised by the petitioners. I don't want to make any observation about the same. 5. As I said earlier, it is an award passed in a claim petition filed in 1985. The amount due from the judgment debtors as on that date itself was a huge amount. Ext.P4 is the execution petition. Admittedly the further proceedings after Exts.P5 and P7 are stayed by this Court in this writ petition. According to me, to show the bonafides by the petitioners, they should deposit an amount of Rs.2 lakhs before the **W.P.(C).No.5682/2008** **6** Tribunal. On such condition, Exts.P5 and P7 can be quashed. I make it clear that the deposit of the amount will be subject to the decision of the claim of the petitioners in the execution court. I set aside Exts.P5 and P7 on condition of the deposit of Rs.2 lakhs. Moreover, in the light of the Apex Court judgment in **Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Others [2021 (4) KHC 148 (SC)]** , the execution court is bound to dispose the Execution Proceedings itself immediately. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following manner: 1. Exts.P5 and P7 are set aside on condition that the petitioners will deposit an amount of Rs.2 lakhs before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, within four weeks from today. 2. If the petitioners deposit the amount as directed above, the execution court will consider the case of the petitioners afresh and give them an opportunity to adduce evidence. 3. After giving an opportunity of hearing and allowing the petitioners to adduce evidence, **7** ## **W.P.(C).No.5682/2008** the execution court will decide the claim of the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date on which the amount is deposited as directed in clause (1). 4. If the amount is not deposited as directed in clause (1) above, the execution court will proceed from the stage of Exts.P5 and P7. 5. The execution court will dispose the execution proceedings within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. The registry will forward a copy of this judgment to the execution court forthwith. JV sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** **8** ## **W.P.(C).No.5682/2008** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5682/2008** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|PETITIONER EXHIBITS| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION| ||DATED 22.11.1997| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED| ||6.3.99| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED| ||1.3.1998| |Exhibit P3(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTORS| ||OBSERVATION SLIP DATED 28.6.01| |Exhibit P3(B)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED| ||BEFORE THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND| ||COMMISSIONER, KALOOR DATED 16.8.01| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE EP NO.240/04 DATED| ||27.9.2004| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.8.2007| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED| ||22.8.2006| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.07.| ||2007|