IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 9298 of 2010(J) ------------------------- OPMV.745/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL KHADER, S/O. ABOOBACKER, MULAYAMPILLY HOUSE, THATTAMPADY, KARUMALLUR.P.O., PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ELIAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PARAMESWARAN, S/O. CHIRUKANDAN, PAYYAPPILLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MAKKANAYI, MANNAM.PO., PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. AJESH, S/O. ADITYAN, KOCHUPUNCHAYIL HOUSE, PARAVOOTHAR, N.PARUR.P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST. 3. RAJEESH P.P. S/O. PRAKASAN, PUNCHAYIL HOUSE, PARAVOOTHA, N.PARUR.P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST. 4. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SUB JAIL ROAD, ALUVA P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.9298 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the second respondent in O.P(MV)No.745 of 2002 on the file of MACT, North Paravoor. The petition was filed by the first respondent, claiming compensation for alleged damages caused to him for injuries sustained in a motor accident. Though the petitioner was a party to the petition, he did not appear, nor did he contest the petition. Therefore, an award was passed by the Tribunal, granting an amount of Rs.10,450/- as compensation to the first respondent. However, it has been provided in Ext.P1 that the fourth respondent was at liberty to recover the amounts from the petitioner and the other respondents after paying the award amount. Accordingly, the Insurance Company has paid the amount and has filed an execution petition for realisation of the amount so paid to the claimant-injured. 2. On coming to know of the passing of Ext.P1 award, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 petition, which is numbered as I.A.318 of 2009 for setting aside the exparte award passed against him. Ext.P2 Wpc 9298/2010 2 petition is accompanied by I.A.319 of 2009, which is a petition for condoning the delay of 675 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte award. According to the petitioner, both Exts.P2 and P3 petitions are pending before the Tribunal. 3. In the above circumstances, the MACT has passed Ext.P4 order in E.P.No.6 of 2009 filed by the Insurance Company for recovering the amount paid as compensation to the first respondent from the petitioner and others. Ext.P4 order has been passed rejecting the contention of the petitioner that he was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident. According to the counsel for the petitioner, passing of Ext.P4 order directing the issue of revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner at a time when Exts.P2 and P3 petitions were pending consideration of the Tribunal is without any justification. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition seeking appropriate directions for an early disposal of Exts.P2 and P3 petitions. 4. In the nature of the limited relief that is sought for in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents. This writ petition can be disposed of directing the Tribunal to consider Wpc 9298/2010 3 and pass orders on Exts.P2 and P3 without delay. 5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the MACT, North Paravoor to consider the petitions filed by the petitioner, evidenced herein by Exts.P2 and P3, in accordance with law, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Pending final orders on Exts.P2 and P3, further proceedings based on or pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk