Dismissed

Asokan v. the District Collector, Kollam

Kerala HC7 Nov 2023WP(C)/9273/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a Revenue Recovery Notice issued in pursuance of an unchallenged award in an OP(M.V) matter before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The court held that the writ petition is not maintainable against the recovery notice as the underlying award remains valid and was not contested.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as it is not maintainable.

Asokan Vs the District Collector, Kollam — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9273 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ASOKAN
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.VIDYADHARAN , VIMALA VILASAM, PAMPURAM,
KALLUVATHKKAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 578.

¶8

BY ADVS.
R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
MANU RAMACHANDRAN
M.KIRANLAL
T.S.SARATH
SAMEER M NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 013.

¶11

2 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE OF KOLLAM, KOLLAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 013.

¶12

3THE VILLAGE OFFICER
PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, PARIPPALLY P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 574.

¶13

4 RAJU,

¶14

AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. PEETHAMBARAN, P.S NIVAS, THETTIKULAM, PUTHENKULAM
P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 302.

¶15

5 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

¶16

THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, 15/164, NEAR MUNICIPAL
BUS STAND, ATTINGAL P.O., ATTINGAL,
TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT-695 101.

¶17

BY ADV SRI.PREMCHAND M.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 9273 OF 2020

¶20

¶21

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶22

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

¶23

WP(C) NO. 9273 OF 2020

¶24

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

¶25

Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2023

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The present writ petition has been filed impugning Ext.P2 Revenue Recovery Notice in respect of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award dated 28.07.2016 passed in OP (M.V) No. 68/2009.

¶28

On 11.09.2007, at about 5.30 p.m the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing registration No. KL-02-U-9589 from Oonninmoodu to Ayiroor. Motor cycle reaching ‘post office junction’ Elakamon, skidded and overturned and thereby the claimant sustained serious injuries. It was alleged that, the said motor cycle was driven by the present petitioner, who was the 1^st respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the accident was took place as a result of the rash and negligent

¶29

WP(C) NO. 9273 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

driving of the petitioner.

¶32

The Petitioner, who was the 1^st respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was the registered owner of the motor cycle. The insurance company, who is the 5^th respondent in this writ petition was the 2^nd respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

¶33

The claimant has filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,28,000/- from the petitioner and the insurance company.

¶34

The petitioner as well as the insurance company filed a written statement in which it was contented by the petitioner that he was having a valid driving licence on the date when the accident took place and therefore, the petitioner was not liable to pay the compensation. Insurance company took the plea that, the petitioner herein, who was the 1^st respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal did not have a valid driving licence on the date of the

¶35

WP(C) NO. 9273 OF 2020

¶36

¶37

accident and he had violated the terms of the policy. Therefore, the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the 1^st respondent.

¶38

Following issues were framed by the Tribunal for answer.

¶39

“1. Whether the petitioner has sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident as alleged?

¶40

Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Motor Cycle by the 1^st respondent?

¶41

Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so what is the quantum?

¶42

Reliefs and costs?”

¶43

On the question of whether the petitioner

¶44

was having the valid driving licence on the date of accident, the Tribunal find that, the photocopy submitted by the petitioner in Ext.B2 shows that the petitioner had obtained the driving licence only in the year 2012. The insurance company filed IA 5818/2010

¶45

for a direction to the petitioner who was the 1^st

¶46

WP(C) NO. 9273 OF 2020

¶47

¶48

respondent to produce the driving licence. Though the petitioner received notice of I.A, he had not produced the driving licence. In such a circumstance, the Tribunal is of the opinion that an adverse inference was to be drawn against the petitioner and in the above circumstances, the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the 1^st respondent. However, it was directed that the insurance company should pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the petitioner. In the final direction, it was said that the insurance company after making payment to the claimant of the awarded sum, it would be free to get it reimbursed from the petitioner. The right to reimbursement would be inoperative, if in a proceedings for recovery the petitioner would produce a valid driving licence. This award was passed on 04.02.2008. The petitioner has not challenged this award. The insurance company after making payment of the awarded sum to the claimant, moved an

¶49

WP(C) NO. 9273 OF 2020

¶50

¶51

execution petition and in pursuance to the order passed, the impugned recovery notice has been issued.

¶52

This Court finds that this writ petition is not maintainable against the revenue recovery notice as much as the same has been issued in pursuance to the award in O.P (M.V) No. 68/2009 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Attingal dated 28.07.2016 in Ext.P1 which has been remained unchallenged and therefore, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶53

Sd/DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶54

rpr

¶55

WP(C) NO. 9273 OF 2020

¶56

¶57

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9273/2020

¶58

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶59

EXHIBIT P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN OP(MV) NO.68.2009
OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , ATTINGAL
DATED 28.07.2016.
EXHIBIT P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE
NO.2/9881/2002 DATED 29.06.2015.
EXHIBIT P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE
NO.2/9881/2002 DATED 23.06.2011.

Asokan v. the District Collector, Kollam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asokan v. the District Collector, Kollam

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

Reji Kumar Vs the District Collector

Reji Kumar Vs the District Collector

Reji Kumar Vs the District Collector

Renuka Vs Arun Thomas Varghese

Subhadra Vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.

Soni Varghese Vs the South Indian Bank Ltd.