Disposed

Mohammed Iqbal, Rep.by Its Power of Attorney Holder Irshad A.S. v. Sumi

Kerala HC14 Jul 2016OP (MAC)/75/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged recovery proceedings initiated by fourth respondent after policy violation in a motor accident claim award. Court stayed any such attachment actions for one month to allow petitioner to pursue pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Stay of any attachment proceedings under Section 7 of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for one month.

Mohammed Iqbal, Rep.by Its Power of Attorney Holder… — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2016/23RD ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 75 of 2016 (O)

¶6

OP(MV)NO.837/2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/DRIVER:

¶8

MOHAMMED IQBAL

¶9

S/O.THERUVATH MOHAMMED, NAJEEB MANZIL, GOOD DAYS, TEMPLES ROAD P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER IRSHAD A.S,ABUBEKKAR KUNJU, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDIING AT DARULSALAM, UNDAPPARA, POOVACHAL, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANT:

¶12

1. SUMI, W/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 33 YEARS, P.B.NO.2/7/2007), D/O.YACOB, PALIKAKUDIYIL HOUSE, KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM-682 035.

¶13

2. HANNA AZEEZ (MINOR 6 YEARS),

¶14

D/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ, NEDUVANCHERY HOUSE, PARAPPURAM ROAD, EDAPPAL, KALADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶15

3. ABDUL NAIZR K.A.,

¶16

S/O.ABDULLA T.A., KOLLAMPADY, THURUTHY ROAD, ANANGOOR,KASARAGOD-677 121.

¶17

4. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, THRUTHY ROAD, ANANGOOR, KASARAGOD-6771 21.

¶18

5. ISMAIL, S/O.SAIDU MUHAMMED, NEDUVANCHERY HOUSE, PONMMUNDUM P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-678 001.

¶19

R4 BY SRI.M.A.GEORGE

¶20

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

OP (MAC).No. 75 of 2016 (O) ----------------------------

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN OP NO.837/2013. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN IA NO.65/2015 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

¶32

O.P.(MAC)NO.75 OF 2016

¶33

Dated this the 14^th day of July, 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Petitioner is the first respondent in OP.(MV) No.837/2013 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur, (hereinafter called the Tribunal). Respondents 1 and 2 secured an award in the said claim petition. As per the award, policy condition violation was taken note of by the tribunal and accordingly the fourth respondent Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount to the claimants and seek indemnification of the said amount. Consequently fourth respondent has filed Ext.P2 application, before the Tribunal seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and accordingly, the Tribunal may issue proceedings for revenue recovery at any moment. It is in this background this Original Petition is filed.

¶36

¶37

O.P.(MAC)NO.75 OF 2016

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. Notice to other respondents are dispensed with since the fourth respondent is a sole affected person concerning the subject issue. The sole grievance voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition is that, the petitioner is a very poor person and the attachments is effected as provided under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, it will cause irreparable loss and injury to him. Petitioner has not produced any document to show that already the attachment proceedings are initiated by the recovery authorities pursuant to any direction issued by the Tribunal.

¶39

It is also submitted that petitioner has preferred an appeal before this court against the award along with the delay condonation petition and the same is pending consideration. Therefore, I think if any orders are passed by the Tribunal and if the recovery authorities have initiated any action under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, same shall be kept in

¶40

¶41

O.P.(MAC)NO.75 OF 2016

¶42

abeyance for a period of one month enabling the petitioner to pursue the appeal filed before this court.

¶43

Original petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶44

sd/-

¶45

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶46

R.AV

Mohammed Iqbal, Rep.by Its Power of Attorney Holder Irshad A.S. v. Sumi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Iqbal, Rep.by Its Power of Attorney Holder Irshad A.S. v. Sumi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Sarath Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (G)

K.Baby Vs Ottapalam Block Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.No.P 608

Mayinkutty Vs the Thalappilly Taluk Primary Co-Operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. No. 1354

Noorjahan Vs Basheer

The Manrothuruth Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs N.Thankappan

C.K. Sathyaprakash Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority