Disposed

Viju E.V. v. Deputy Tahsildar

Kerala HC2 Mar 2018OP (MAC)/21/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 to direct Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to expeditiously dispose of pending applications to set aside an ex-parte award and condone delay. Pending orders, recovery proceedings were stayed conditional on a 25% deposit.

What did the court decide?

Dir. MAC.T. to dispose of I.As within two months; stay of recovery proceedings on deposit of 25% within two weeks.

Viju E.V. Vs Deputy Tahsildar — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 21 of 2018

¶6

OP(MV) 1024/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL(IN CHARGE), THRISSUR.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

VIJU E.V., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, EDAKKALATHUR HOUSE, AVVINISSERY PO, THRISSUR - 680 313.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SRI.P.S.SIDHARTHAN

¶10

SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY CIVIL STATION, AYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680 001.

¶13

2. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, CHEVOOR, THRISSUR - 680 027.

¶14

3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, PERINCHERRY BUILDING, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR - 680 001.

¶15

4. VALLIAMMA, AGED 68 YEARS, W/O.RAMANKUTTY, KOMBIL HOUSE, INCHAMUDY, CHERPU PO, THRISSUR - 680 564.

¶16

5. BIJU, S/O.VARGHESE, EDAKKALATHUR HOUSE, CHEVOOR PO, THRISSUR - 680 027.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.HARISH R3 BY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN

¶18

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

mbr/

¶20

OP (MAC).No. 21 of 2018 (O)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN OP(MV) NO.1024/2007 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR DATED 28/04/2015.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 7 OF OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 27/01/2018.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 27/01/2018.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF IA.NO.1894/2018 IN OP(MV)NO.1024/2007 DATED 22/02/2018 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE M.A.C.T, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF IA.NO.1895/2018 IN OP(MV) NO.1024/2007 DATED 22/02/2018 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE M.A.C.T, THRISSUR.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ----------------------

¶25

/TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE

¶26

mbr/ 07.03.2018.

¶27

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.

¶28

O.P.(MAC).No.21 of 2018

¶29

Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2018

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner, who is the owner of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-08/AK-631, who was arrayed as the 1^st respondent in O.P.(M.V).No.1024/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, a claim petition filed by the 4^th respondent herein being the legal heir of the deceased claimant Ramankutty, is before this Court in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order directing the Tribunal to dispose of Exts.P4 and P5 interlocutory applications, i.e., I.A.No.1894 of 2018 filed for setting aside Ext.P1 ex-parte award in O.P.(M.V.).No.1024/2007 and I.A.No.1895 of 2018 for condonation of delay in filing I.A.No.1894 of 2018 and also seeking an order to quash Exts.P2 and P3 revenue recovery notices issued in execution of Ext.P1 award.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent. Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted, service of notice on respondents 4 and 5 is dispensed with.

¶33

The petitioner, who is the registered owner of the motor bike having registration No.KL-08/AK-631, was the 1^st respondent before the Tribunal in O.P.(M.V.)No.1034 of 2007. Since he did not turn up, the

¶34

O.P.(MAC)No.21 of 2018

¶35

:-2-:

¶36

Tribunal passed Ext.P1 ex-parte award, whereby, the claimant in that original petition was awarded a compensation of 47,550/- together₹ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Since the rider of vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence, the Tribunal permitted the 3^rd respondent insurer to recover the amount of compensation paid to the claimant by proceeding against the petitioner, who is the owner of the motor vehicle. Pursuant to Ext.P1 award after effecting payment to the claimant, the 3^rd respondent Insurer made a request to the revenue recovery authorities for the recovery of the amount from the petitioner, which has resulted in Exts.P2 and P3 notices, demanding a sum of 94,672/- together with interest. ₹

¶37

Seeking an order to set aside Ext.P1 ex-parte award and also to condone the delay of 790 days in filing the above application, I.A.Nos. 1894/2018 and 1895/2018 were filed before the Tribunal and those applications are now pending consideration. In the meanwhile, recovery proceedings are initiated pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3 demand notices.

¶38

Admittedly, Ext.P1 award passed by the Tribunal stands unchallenged. It was in such circumstances that the revenue recovery proceedings were initiated based on the requisition made by the 3^rd respondent Insurer. Only thereafter that the petitioner moved Exts.P4 application before the Tribunal for setting aside Ext.P1 ex-parte award, along with Ext.P5 application for condonation of delay. The petitioner,

¶39

O.P.(MAC)No.21 of 2018

¶40

:-3-:

¶41

who has chosen to challenge Ext.P1 award only belatedly, cannot seek an order of stay of recovery proceedings as a matter of course.

¶42

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P4 and P5 interlocutory applications, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment with notice to both sides.

¶43

Till such orders are passed, all recovery proceedings pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3 revenue recovery notices will stand stayed on condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the total amount awarded by the Tribunal together with interest before the Tribunal, within a period of two weeks.

¶44

Sd/ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶45

AV/6/3

Viju E.V. v. Deputy Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viju E.V. v. Deputy Tahsildar

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

Anil Kumar P.P Vs the Kannur Town Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. C-844

M/S.Canara Bank Ltd. Vs Regional Transport Officer

Anup Kumar Vs the Excise Commissioner

Saradammal Vs the Joint Registrar (General)

Aisu Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Athikkal Valson Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (G)