IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 2769 of 2007()
1. K.M.NASSARUDDIN, S/O.ABDUL MAJEED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT
... Respondent
2. TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNOOR TALUK,
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSE JOSEPH ARAYAKUNNEL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :22/11/2007
O R D E R
H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WRIT APPEAL No.2769 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2007.
JUDGMENT
H.L.DATTU, CJ,
Appellant is the owner of lorry bearing No.KI 7/U 3191. He has
questioned the legality or otherwise of the recovery notices issued by the respondents
in the writ petition pursuant to an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (MACT). In the award passed, the Presiding Judge of the Tribunal had
directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount awarded and
then to recover the same from respondents 1 and 2 in those proceedings. The
appellant before us was the first respondent in the award.
2. Petitioner has called in question Exts.P4 and P4(a) notices issued by
the Revenue Recovery Officer on the request made by the Insurance Company.
3. The learned Judge has rejected the writ petition solely on the
ground that the award has become final since nobody has questioned the correctness
or otherwise of the said award before any other superior forum.
4. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the award passed by the
MACT has become final. Pursuant to the award so passed, the Insurance Company
has deposited the compensation amount awarded in the award. Thereafter as
permitted by the Tribunal, has initiated proceedings to recover the compensation
amount paid by it from the owner of the vehicle and also the person in charge of the
vehicle, which met with an accident.
5. First and foremost, the appellant could not have merely questioned
the revenue recovery notice without questioning the correctness or otherwise of the
award before an appropriate forum. Even on that short ground, the learned Single
W.A. 2769/2007. 2
Judge could have rejected the writ petition. Secondly, since the award has become final
and pursuant to the said award if proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act is
initiated, the appellant cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. In that view of the
matter also the learned Single Judge could have rejected the matter.
6. Taking the latter view as the basis, the learned Single Judge has
rejected the writ petition. In that view of the matter, we are of the firm opinion that the
learned Single Judge has not committed any error whatsoever, which would call for our
interference. Accordingly the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L. DATTU,
CHIEF JUSTICE
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
sb.