Allowed

Antony C.D. v. Deputy Tahsildar

Kerala HC19 Nov 2014OP (MAC)/176/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition to stay revenue recovery proceedings against the registered owner of a vehicle pending the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's consideration of an application to set aside an ex-parte award and condone filing delay. The court directed the petitioner to deposit the awarded amount with interest before the Tribunal within three months, ensuring immediate disbursem

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed on conditions: deposit entire award amount with interest before Tribunal within three months; stay of revenue recovery pending Tribunal's consideration of delay conduct and setti

Antony C.D. Vs Deputy Tahsildar — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/28TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 176 of 2014 (O)

¶6

OP(MV) NO. 88/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER :

¶8

ANTONY C.D., S/O.DEVASSY, AGED 40 YEARS NEELANKAVILCHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, KUTTUR.P.O THRISSUR-680 013.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SMT.C.B.ANUROOPA

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

1. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) THRISSUR-680 020.

¶12

2. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTTUR,

¶13

THRISSUR-680 013.

¶14

3. M/S.WHEELS, D.N.M. ROAD, NEAR ASWINI HOSPITAL, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR-680 020.

¶15

4. SINJU K.S., S/O.SASI K.M, KUMBALATHUSSERI, THRIKKARIYOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM-686692.

¶16

5. SULIMAN, S/O.MYTHEEN, PARACKAL HOUSE, PINDIMANA P.O. KOTHAMANGALAM-686698.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. R. RANJITH

¶18

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

...2/-

¶21

OP (MAC).No. 176 of 2014 (O)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶24

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE INSURANCE FOR VEHICLE NO.KL 08 M 3101 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., THRISSUR DATED ON 22.11.2001.

¶25

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE KL 08 AK 9788 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY, THRISSUR.

¶26

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 8.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE PETITION FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN PREFERRING PETITION SETTING ASIDE THE EX-PARTE AWARD FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A.4102 OF 2014 IN OP (MV) NO.88 OF 2010 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶28

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE PETITION FOR SETTING ASIDE THE EX-PARTE AWARD FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A.4103 0F 2014 OF OP (MV) NO.88 OF 2010 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶29

EXT.P6 COPY OF THE AWARD IN OP (MV) NO. 88 OF 2010 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 12.9.2013.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

¶35

- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P(MAC) No. 176 of 2014

¶36

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

¶37

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2014

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

The petitioner is aggrieved with the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P (MV) No.88/2010, as evidenced at Ext.P6. The petitioner was impleaded as the 1^st respondent, being the registered owner. The 2^nd respondent (the 4^th respondent herein) was the driver. However, since there was no insurance, the liability was mulcted on the registered owner as well as the driver.

¶40

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had sold the motor cycle and had purchased another in exchange of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P2 in which there an endorsement made by the dealer who is impleaded as the 3^rd respondent herein. The petitioner also contends that, in fact after the accident, a third party

¶41

OP(MAC) NO.176/2014

¶42

: 2 :

¶43

had taken the vehicle from the custody of the police under a a “kycheet”. In such circumstance, the petitioner challenges the revenue recovery on the ground that the petitioner has no liability with respect to the vehicle, which was involved in the accident and also prays for a stay of recovery till the applications to set aside the exparte award and condone the delay for filing the application, produced at Exts.P4 and P5 are considered by the Tribunal. It is also admitted that there is about 384 days delay in filing the application for setting aside ex-parte award.

¶44

Primarily what is to be noticed is that the registration certificate of the vehicle remains in the name of the petitioner, which would in fact, mulct the liability on the petitioner himself. However, since there is an accepted practice of exchanging vehicles, as also handing over of vehicle on the basis of agreements, a third party could also could be in possession of such vehicle. That alone may not absolve the registered owner from

¶45

OP(MAC) NO.176/2014 : 3 :

¶46

satisfying the liability to the injured. But, the registered owner could very well take up a contention before the appropriate forum that he has made a valid transfer of the vehicle and hence is entitled to recover from such person who is the transferee the liability discharged on account of the vehicle being involved in the accident. A reservation made on that count by the Tribunal would be sufficient for the petitioner, to initiate such proceedings. However, such a person would have to be impleaded before the Tribunal also, even for the Tribunal to make a reservation on that aspect.

¶47

In any event, the petitioner has filed an application to set aside the ex-parte award with delay condonation petition. If the petitioner deposits the entire amounts with interest as computed by the Tribunal as on 30.11.2014, before the Tribunal, within a period of three months from today, the application for ex-parte award and delay condonation shall be considered, favourably, by the Tribunal. The amounts thus deposited by the

¶48

OP(MAC) NO.176/2014

¶49

: 4 :

¶50

petitioner shall be immediately disbursed to the claimant. The petitioner shall be entitled to raise the question of liability before the Tribunal after impleading the affected parties. The Tribunal shall decide the same on the basis of the evidence led before the Tribunal untrammelled by the observation made herein, which are only in the nature of 'prima facie' observations. The petitioner shall appear before the Tribunal on 02.12.2014.

¶51

Writ petition would stand allowed on the above conditions.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

K.VINOD CHANDRAN,

jma

Judge

//true copy//

P.A to Judge

Antony C.D. v. Deputy Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antony C.D. v. Deputy Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joseph Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Jose Antony Vs Assistant Registrar Co.Op.Societies & an

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Regional Transport Authority

K.S.Viswanathan Vs Bajaj Allianz

Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs Sisupalan

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs Union of India