IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20451 of 2009(B)
1. DEVADAS, S/O. DARMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DIST.
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAG
4. UNITED INDIA INSURNACE COMPANY LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.RAFFEEKH.K
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :22/07/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P. (C) No. 20451 of 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 22nd day of July, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is stated as the owner of the vehicle which
involved in a motor accident and a party to OP(MV) No. 509 of 2004
filed before the MACT, North Paravoor, has approached this Court
challenging Ext.P1 notice issued by the revenue authorities under the
relevant provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, in furtherance
to the steps for executing the Award stated as passed by the concerned
Tribunal against the petitioner.
2. Case put forth by the petitioner is that, the motor bike bearing
No. KL7 AQ 1399 owned by the petitioner met with a road traffic
accident on 7.4.2004 causing injuries to a person, which led to filing of
OP(MV) 509 of 2004. The petitioner contends that, he could not appear
before the MACT, as he did not receive any notice from the Tribunal
and the Tribunal passed an Award fixing the liability upon the petitioner;
pursuant to which, Ext.P1 proceedings have been taken by the
Revenue Authority, at the instance of the claimant, for the realization of
the amount stated as due. The only prayer of the petitioner is, to stay
the revenue recovery proceedings so as to enable the petitioner to
challenge the exparte Award passed by the Tribunal; which itself forms
the interim relief sought for as well.
WP (C) No. 20451 of 2009
: 2 :
3. At the very outset, it is to be noted is that there is no ‘main
relief’ prayed in the Writ Petition to set aside the exparte Award. The
only prayer is to stay the consequential proceedings in execution.
Obviously interim relief can only sub serve the main relief and in so far
as the main relief is conspicuously absent, no interim relief can be
granted. That apart, there is a statutory hurdle, in so far as the Award
in OP(MV) can be challenged only by way of appeal under Section 173
and no Writ Petition is maintainable, as made clear by the Apex Court
on many an occasion including in Sadhana Lodh Vs. National
Insurance Company Ltd. and another (2003 (3) SCC 524) .
4. In the above circumstances, no interference is called for. The
Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner
to pursue other appropriate remedies in accordance with law.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd