Raghavan vs The Motor Accidents Claims … on 7 September, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 11950 of 2004(V)


1. RAGHAVAN, S/O.MAYANDI, NELLIPADAM,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. GOVINDAN, S/O.KRISHNAN,

                        Vs



1. THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

5. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.C.MOHANDAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :07/09/2009

 O R D E R
                      C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
                      ------------------------------
                   W.P.(C)No.11950 OF 2004
                      ------------------------------
           Dated this the 7th day of September, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

———————-

1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2 to P7

notices issued under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue

Recovery Act against the petitioners for realisation of the

amounts awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Palakkad, which was paid to the claimants by the 5th respondent.

In the awards of the Tribunal, right to recovery was permitted to

the 5th respondent on the ground that the driver of the vehicle

was not holding valid licence at the time of the accident.

Contention of the petitioners is that they were not having

knowledge about the awards and only when the recovery steps

were initiated they came to know about the liability. According

to the petitioners the person who was actually driving the vehicle

at the time of the accident was holding a valid licence. However

it is stated that the petitioners have already filed appeals against

the award in both the cases along with petitions for condonation

of delay, as early as in the year 2004. Therefore the limited

prayer is only to keep in abeyance the steps for recovery till the

appeals are considered by this Court.

2. Since it is admitted by the petitioners that they have

W.P.(C).11950/04-V 2

already resorted to the remedy by way of appeal as early as in

the year 2004, it is for them to seek appropriate relief from the

appellate Court. In this writ petition the petitioners have not

even produced copy of the award nor they are in a position to

challenge the award herein. Therefore the writ petition is

dismissed without prejudice to right of the petitioners to seek

appropriate relief in the appeals filed against the awards of the

Tribunal.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

okb