IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 23854 of 2009(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BIPIN CHANDRADAS, S/O.LATE MOHAN DAS, BIPIN VIHAR, SARKARA, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.M.BALAGOVINDAN, MR.VINOD J.DEV. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. G.RAJENDRAN NAIR, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, MULACKAL VEEDU, VATTIKUZHY PO, KAVANADU, KOLLAM. 2. R.KUMAR, MARIAKKAVU VILAKOM VEEDU, PERUMKUZHI, P.O.CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ATTINGAL REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, KOLLAM BRANCH. 4. JEEJA BAI, VILAYIL VEEDU, SARKARA P.O.,CHIRAYINKEEZHU. 5. MEERA RANI, VILAYIL VEEDU, SARKARA P.O., CHIRAYINKEEZHU. 6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,TRIVANDRUM. 7. TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU. 8. VILLAGE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHIRAYINKEEZHU. R6 TO R8 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).23854/2009 ....................... Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is one of the legal heirs of the 2nd respondent in O.P.(MV).No.1270/91 on the files of the 1st Additional District Judge & MACT, Kollam. Ext.P1 award was passed holding that respondents 1 and 2 therein are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the amount. The Insurance Company was exonerated from liability. 2. Ext.P1 was put in execution. Apparently both the owner and the driver had not entered appearance before the MACT and the petitioner came to know about the Award only in 2005. Petitioner has filed an appeal against Ext.P1 and an amount of Rs.25,000/- was deposited by the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P2 as a condition for maintaining the appeal. A Division Bench of this Court has stayed the execution of the Award on condition that an amount of Rs.50,000/- is deposited. That has also been deposited by the petitioner. In the meanwhile, properties belonging to the petitioner have been attached in the W.P.(C).23854/09 2 course of the execution of the Award. Petitioner is one of the legal heirs of the 2nd respondent before the MACT. He is aggrieved by such attachment as he is desirous of selling the property. He has therefore, approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 6 to 8 namely the District Collector, Tahsildar and the Village Officer to lift the attachment order in relation to the property mentioned therein, on payment of the entire amount which would be due as on date under Ext.P1. 3. Notice has been ordered to the respondents by special messenger. Mr.C.Rajendran enters appearance for the 1st respondent namely, the claimant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount which has been deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the directions of this Court have been withdrawn by the claimant. That is a matter for enquiry. That shall be verified by the MACT. But I do not find any reason why the petitioner's request for lifting the attachment over his property should not be accepted if W.P.(C).23854/09 3 the petitioner is willing to secure the Award by other means. 4. In the result, petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.4 Lakhs with the MACT, Kollam, which is currently executing Ext.P1 Award, less the amount which has already been deposited pursuant to the orders of this Court. One half of the total amount covered by the Award shall be either deposited in the bank or disbursed to the claimant in tune with Ext.P1 Award. The remaining one half shall be deposited in a Bank account in the name of the MACT and shall be treated as a security for the Award, and will therefore, be vulnerable for execution. But it is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to raise a contention in the Execution Petition that the Award should also be executed, against the owner of the vehicle, who was the 1st respondent in Ext.P1. If such contention is raised by the petitioner, that shall also be looked into by the MACT in the course of considering the Execution Petition. MACT shall pass an order lifting the W.P.(C).23854/09 4 attachment effected over the properties belonging to the petitioner, without any delay, once the amount of Rs.4 Lakhs less the amount which has already been deposited, is deposited before the MACT pursuant to the directions of this Court. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs