IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 2795 of 2011() ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P. SANTHOSH, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN SANTHOSH BHAVAN, CHERUSSERY BHAGAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM- 691 583. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN -690 518. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, PIN- 691 583. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHINNAKKADA BRANCH, KOLLAM- 691 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.MATHEW GEORGE VADEKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2795 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle which involved in a motor vehicle accident, with respect to which compensation cases were filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. Ext.P4 is a common Award passed by the Tribunal disposing O.P(MV) Nos.989/02 and 990/02. On the premise that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid licence at the relevant time, the Tribunal held liability on the petitioner. The 3rd respondent herein, who is the insurer of the vehicle was directed to make payment of the compensation to the respective claimants and they were given liberty to realise such amounts from the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, the driver in question was holding valid licence and it was only due to non-diligent prosecution of the matter before the Tribunal, such fact could not be brought to notice. However, aggrieved by the common Award, the petitioner is taking steps to file appeal before this court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that certified copy of Ext.P4 Award was already obtained and appeals along with delay condonation petitions were already filed. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is seeking W.P.(C).2795/11 -2- indulgence of this court in restraining coercive steps of recovery, which is now initiated on the basis of Ext.P1 to P3 revenue recovery notices, for a reasonable period, in order to facilitate the petitioner to seek appropriate interim relief from the appellate court. 2. In view of the relief which is proposed to be granted, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the 3rd respondent. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in restraining coercive steps of recovery for a reasonable period in order to facilitate the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from the appellate court. 3. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to keep in abeyance all coercive steps of recovery initiated on the basis of Ext.P1 to P3 for a period of two months from today. 4. However, attachment if any effected with respect to immovable property will continue. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb