Allowed

Mohammed Ali v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Mar 2018WP(C)/1065/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Kerala allowed the petitioner to clear the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award amount in eight equal monthly instalments rather than as a lump sum, directing the requesting authority to keep recovery proceedings in abeyance during the payment period.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to pay award amount in eight equal monthly instalments starting from 19.03.2018; recovery proceedings kept in abeyance during default-free payment period.

Mohammed Ali Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 1065 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MOHAMMED ALI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O PAREETH KUNJU, KIZHAKKEDATH MYALIL HOUSE, MARITHAZHAM P.O., KANJIRAMATTOM, ERNAKULAM-682315.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.A.MUJEEB SRI.M.H.HANIS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682011.

¶12

3. C.V.SANTHOSH, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O VARGHESE, CHAYELIL HOUSE, ARAKUNNAM, MANEED P.O., MEMUKHAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686726.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.HARISH R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.RAJAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 1065 of 2018 (G)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION IN O.P.(MV) NO.655/2013 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMNS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 31.12.2016 IN O.P.(MV) NO.655/2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION MADE BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 7.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE

¶21

ANNEXURE R2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AMBALLOOR

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

7.3.2018

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.

¶27

----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1065 of 2018

¶28

Dated this the 5^th day of March, 2018

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner, who is the 4^th respondent in O.P.(M.V).No.655 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, has approached this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P3 and P4 demand notices and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent to allow him to remit the amount demanded in Ext.P4 demand notice dated 07.12.2017 issued by the 2^nd respondent in 20 equal monthly instalments.

¶31

On 11.01.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 2. This Court has issued urgent notice on admission by speed post to the 3^rd respondent returnable within two weeks.

¶32

On 09.02.2018, when this writ petition came up for further consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the award amount in lump and he requires at least 15 months' time for making payment, in monthly instalments. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent submitted that the petitioner is a business man with no acute financial stringency as averred in the writ petition and the present writ petition is only to delay

¶33

W.P.(C).No.1065 of 2018

¶34

:-2-:

¶35

the payment of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in O.P. (M.V.)No.655/2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file a proper affidavit of the petitioner explaining the facts and circumstances.

¶36

Pursuant to the said order, an affidavit dated 14.02.2018 has been filed by the petitioner, wherein, it is stated that he has no assets or regular income and he is residing in a rental house and earning his livelihood as a Coolie worker.

¶37

By order dated 26.02.2018, the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar was directed to conduct an enquiry through the Village Officer concerned, as to the averments made in paragraph 3 of the affidavit dated 14.02.2018 of the petitioner and to submit a report before this Court on 05.03.2018. Pursuant to the said order, a statement has been filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent enclosing therewith the enquiry report of the Tahsildar, Amballoor. The aforesaid report would indicate that the petitioner is a Coolie worker and that, at present he is living along with his newly wedded wife at Wayanad District. As per the report, while the petitioner was residing in the address shown in the writ petition, he was a Coolie worker and had been earning 6,000/- per month. ₹

¶38

Though the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent has raised a specific contention that the petitioner is a business man and he has no financial stringency as averred in the writ petition, the report of the

¶39

W.P.(C).No.1065 of 2018

¶40

:-3-:

¶41

Village Officer would indicate that the petitioner is aking his livelihood as a manual labourer. In such circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner can be permitted to clear the entire amount covered by Ext.P2 award in monthly instalments.

¶42

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :

¶43

The petitioner shall pay off the entire dues covered by Ext.P4 demand notice, together with future interest, in eight equal monthly instalments commencing from 19.03.2018 and the subsequent instalments payable on or before the 19^th day of the succeeding months.

¶44

If the petitioner is remitting the aforesaid instalments in time, without any default, all recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance, so as to enable him to pay off the entire dues as above.

¶45

In case of any default committed by the petitioner in remitting any one of the aforesaid instalments, it would be open to the respondents to proceed further with the coercive steps, in accordance with law.

¶46

W.P.(C).No.1065 of 2018

¶47

:-4-:

¶48

It is made clear that on such deposits being made by the petitioner in terms of this judgment, the Tribunal shall permit the 3^rd respondent claimant to withdraw the said amount.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶51

AV/6/3

Mohammed Ali v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ali v. State of Kerala

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

Viju E.V. Vs Deputy Tahsildar

Saradammal Vs the Joint Registrar (General)

Aisu Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Viji Vs the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery)

Sosamma John Vs the Thrissur Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development

Adv. K.v.James Vs the Secretary