High Court Kerala High Court

Peethambaran vs Deputy Tahsildar(Rr) Thodupuzha on 12 October, 2009

Kerala High Court
Peethambaran vs Deputy Tahsildar(Rr) Thodupuzha on 12 October, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28586 of 2009(P)


1. PEETHAMBARAN, S/O. KANNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR) THODUPUZHA.
                       ...       Respondent

2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., REP. BY

3. BABY S/O. MATHEW, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE

4. THOMAS PEMBLARICKAL KURUMBALAMATTOM

                For Petitioner  :SRI.E.D.GEORGE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :12/10/2009

 O R D E R
                 C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                 W.P.(C)No. 28586 of 2009
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009

                        J U D G M E N T

1. Petitioner is aggrieved by revenue recovery steps

initiated against him under Ext.P2 & P3 notices, for

realizing amounts covered under the award in O.P. (M.V.)

No. 1074/2003 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Thodupuzha. Petitioner was implicated as 2nd respondent in

the above said claim petition, on the premise that he was

the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. At the

same time the 3rd respondent herein was also implicated as

4th respondent in the said claim petition, in the capacity as

owner. According to the petitioner the vehicle in question

was transfered much prior to the accident, to the 3rd

respondent herein. In fact registered ownership also stood

transfered as on the date of accident. The petitioner was

having no knowledge about the accident and about filing of

the claim before the Tribunal. According to the petitioner

he had not received any notice from the Tribunal and in the

W.P.(C)No. 28586 of 2009
-2-

award he was set exparte. He came to know only when the

notice of recovery was received, is the contention. It is

stated that the petitioner had already filed application for

getting certified copy of the Award and he is proposing to

file appeal against the Award. Limited prayer of the

petitioner to keep in abeyance all recovery steps, in order to

facilitate him to prefer an appeal against the award.

2. I am of the opinion that a breathing time can be

granted in this regard to facilitate the petitioner to prefer

appeal before this court and seek appropriate remedy.

3. In the result the writ petition is disposed of

directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further

steps initiated pursuant to Exts.P2 & P3 notices for a period

of two months from today in order to facilitate the petitioner

to obtain certified copy of the award and move in appeal

against the award.

C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
shg/