IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11882 of 2010(I) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ CYRIAC.K.M, S/O.MATHEW, KULATHIL HOUSE, KAIPUZHA.P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.K.P.PRATHAPAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM. 2. ELDHO ALIAS, S/O.ALIAS, KANNETHKUDIYIL HOUSE, KOTTAPPADY KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.11882 of 2010-I ---------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a respondent in O.P(MV) No.933 of 2004 filed by the second respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, seeking compensation in respect of the injuries sustained in an accident involving the motor cycle bearing No.KL-5P-34 belonging to the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that no summons was served to the petitioner and hence he could not contest the matter before the Tribunal in an effective manner. It is also stated that the accident occurred when the motor cycle belonging to the petitioner and another bike bearing No.KL-5H-7036 on which the second respondent was travelling collided with each other. The challenge has been raised on many a ground. It is also stated that the liability if any has to be satisfied by the concerned insurer, who is not a party to the present proceedings. So also, this Court is left in the dark as to the contents of the Award, which has not been produced before this Court. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader, who entered appearance on behalf of the first respondent. The challenge is W.P(C) No.11882 of 2010-I 2 basically against the Award passed by the Tribunal. There is a remedy for the petitioner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by way of appeal, after depositing 50% of the amount awarded or Rs.25,000/- whichever is less. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has already taken steps to obtain certified copy of the Award and to file appeal before this Court. In any view of the matter, since the petitioner has only sought to challenge the consequential proceedings by way of revenue recovery and since there is no challenge against the basic order or Award itself by way of appeal, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, taking note of the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to enable the petitioner to pursue such exercise by way of appeal, this Court finds it fit and proper to grant some breathing time in this regard. Accordingly, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two months, on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.25,000/- within three weeks. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge