IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4842 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- JOBY PAUL AGED 38 YEARS,S/O.PAULOSE, OLAMATTEL HOUSE, KAMBILIKANDOM KARA, KAMBILIKANDOM P.O., KONNATHADY VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PADAYATTEE YELDO RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR IDUKKI REPRESENTING THE STATE, CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ELANJICKAL PLAZA BUILDING, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. MR.VARGHESE,S/O.KUNCHERIA, VALLIYARAYIL HOUSE, KILAVKULAM KARA, KAILASAND P.O., UDUMBANCHOLA VILLAGE,IDUKKI. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.4842 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the coercive steps taken by the revenue authorities at the instance of the second respondent who is the insurer of the vehicle concerned, in furtherance to Ext.P5 Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was the owner of a motor jeep bearing registration No.KL/N 3130 which was purchased by him on 30.8.2000 and subsequently sold to another person by name Rajeev on 14.2.2001. But the vehicle met with an accident on 21.6.2001 causing injuries to the passengers which led to separate claim petitions preferred before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, leading to Ext.P5 Award passed by the Tribunal, whereby the W.P.(C) No.4842 of 2010 - 2 - compensation awarded in respect of the injuries sustained by the claimants was directed to be satisfied by the insurer, with liberty to have it recovered later from the petitioner, i.e. the registered owner, in view of the proven violation of the statutory/policy conditions. 3. The petitioner contends that he is not liable to satisfy the liability and that he was not aware of the proceedings earlier. It is also stated that the petitioner has now made arrangements to challenge Ext.P5 Award, but since the revenue recovery proceedings are being pursued in the meanwhile, at the instance of the insurer, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing the writ petition. 4. When the matter came up for consideration on 16.2.2010, 'status quo' was ordered, simultaneously issuing urgent notice on admission to the respondents 2 and 3. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent insurer as well. W.P.(C) No.4842 of 2010 - 3 - 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the remedy of the petitioner, if aggrieved by Ext.P5 Award, is to file an appeal as provided under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act and not by filing any writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This being the position, no interference is called for. However, so as to enable the petitioner to file appeal, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 demand notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from today. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns