High Court Kerala High Court

M.S.Binu Raj vs The District Collector on 21 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
M.S.Binu Raj vs The District Collector on 21 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 37273 of 2008(K)


1. M.S.BINU RAJ,MANNAKKATTU HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABY THOMAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :21/01/2009

 O R D E R
                          ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                          -----------------------------
                        W.P.(C) No. 37273 of 2008
                      --------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009

                                 JUDGMENT

Petitioner was the claimant in OP(MV) No.70/2004 before the

MACT, Pala. Award was passed by the Tribunal against the second

respondent, by which the second respondent was directed to pay an

amount of Rs.77,300/- with interest and other charges.

2. According to the petitioner award has become final and

despite that the amount was not deposited. Petitioner filed E.P.No.

134/2007 for execution of the award and finally the Tribunal issued

Exhibit P2 order directing issuance of Revenue Certificate to the first

respondent for realising the amount from the second respondent.

3. Petitioner submits that though Exhibit P2 was issued as

early as on 20/11/2007, so far recovery has not been effected. It is with

that complaint, this writ petition has been filed praying to direct the

first respondent to recover the amount due from the 2nd respondent.

4. It is seen that Exhibit P2 order was passed by the Tribunal

on 20/11/2007. According to the petitioner, in spite of lapse of more

than one year, so far no recovery has been effected. This shows the sad

W.P.(C) No. 37273 / 2008
2

state of affairs. The petitioner being the victim of an accident and

having suffered injuries, the second respondent ought to have satisfy

the award even without an execution petition.

As already seen, on account of the failure of the second

respondent in satisfying the award, the Tribunal passed Exhibit P2 and

the first respondent has to effect the recovery without any delay. Since,

inordinate delay in realising this amount has already been caused, I

direct the first respondent to take further action in this recovery of the

amount due to the petitioner consequent to the award under O.P(MV)

No.70/2004 and this shall be done as expeditiously as possible.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
scm