IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24905 of 2010(K)
1. VINODKUMAR, AGED 57,S/O.KALLIKADAVIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ANNA PREETHY @ PREETHY,W/O.LATE JOSEPH,
... Respondent
2. RITTO (MINOR),S/O.LATE JOSEPH,
3. V.T.SAJITH,S/O.THANKAPPAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :10/08/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.24905 of 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th August, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner complains of non-consideration of
Exts.P6 and P7 claim petitions filed by him before the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The petitioner
had purchased a stage carriage vehicle bearing
Reg.No.KL-8/Q 1195 from the third respondent. Another
vehicle that belonged to the third respondent had been
involved in a motor accident in which a motor cyclist and
his daughter had died. Respondents 1 and 2 are the legal
representatives of the deceased. They filed O.P.(MV)
Nos.1662 of 2009 and O.P.(MV) No.1663 of 2009 before
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur claiming
compensation for the death of the deceased. The vehicle
that was involved in the accident had no insurance cover
and the third respondent is therefore sued personally for
compensating respondents 1 and 2. Along with the
petitions referred to above, separate petitions for
attachment before judgment of the stage carriage vehicle
wpc No.24905/2010 2
bearing Reg.No.KL-8/Q 1195 that belongs to the petitioner
have been filed. The petitioner apprehends that orders
would be passed in the said petitions attaching the
petitioner’s vehicle. Therefore, he has filed two claim
petitions evidenced herein by Exts.P6 and P7 putting
forward his claim that he is the owner of the vehicle and
that his vehicle is not liable to be attached for the liability
of the third respondent. The petitioner complains that no
orders have been passed on Exts.P6 and P7 till date. At
the same time, the petitioner apprehends the passing of an
order of attachment in respect of his vehicle at any
moment.
2. Since the claim put forward by the petitioner is
pending adjudication before the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Thrissur, it is not necessary for me to consider
the merits of the claim. It is sufficient that the petitions
are directed to be considered expeditiously. In view of the
limited relief that I am proposing to grant, I do not think it
necessary to issue notice to the other respondents.
3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is
disposed of directing the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
wpc No.24905/2010 3
Thrissur to consider I.A.No.6873/2010 in I.A.No.2854 of
2010 in O.P.(MV) No.1662/2009 and I.A.No.6872 of 2010
in I.A.No.2853 of 2010 in O.P.(MV) No.1663/2009 pending
before it in accordance with law and to pass appropriate
orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any
rate before any order of attachment before judgment is
passed on the applications filed by respondents 1 and 2. If
orders of attachment before judgment have already been
passed, the claim petitions of the petitioner referred to
above shall be considered and appropriate orders passed
thereon expeditiously and until such final orders are
passed on the claim petitions filed by the petitioner, the
order of attachment shall not be enforced.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN,
JUDGE
css/