IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10785 of 2010(W) -------------------------- EP.23/2009 of M.A.C.T. TIRUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.ALIYAMUTTY, CHOLAKKARA HOUSE, CHERIYAMUNDAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. MR.JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. V.V.SUBI @ RAHMATHUNNESSA V.V., D/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, VADAKKEVALAPPIL HOUSE, PARIYAPURAM P.O., PARAVANNA, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 2. PATHUMMAKUTTY, W/O.ALIYAMUTTY. 3. MUHAMMAD SEREEF, S/O. ALIYAMUTTY. 4. FASRIYA, D/O.ALIYAMUTTY. 5. MOOSAKUTY, S/O.ALIYAMUTTY RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT CHOLAKKARA HOUSE, CHERIYAMUNDAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.10785 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P3 order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Tirur in E.P.No.23/2009 in O.P.(MV) No.2299/1996. As per the impugned order, the MACT has fixed the upset price of the petitioner's residential property at Rs.7 lakhs and has directed the issue of steps for the sale of the said property. According to the petitioner, the claim in the execution petition is only Rs.1,11,859/- with interest and costs. According to the petitioner, since the value of the property is Rs.7 lakhs, sale of half of the property would be sufficient to satisfy the claim of the decree holder. Therefore, according to him, the MACT exceeded its power in directing sale of the entire property. The petitioner is also willing to pay off the entire decree amount. Therefore, he prays for some time to pay off the amounts claimed. 2. I notice that the award is of the year 1999 and that wpc No.10785/2010 2 the decree holder has been agitating for the compensation due for the injuries suffered in a motor accident. The petitioner contends that the amount was actually due from his father who has expired in 2007. According to him, he was not aware of the pendency of the claim. It is assured that every effort would be made to pay off the amounts within a short time. The petitioner contends that his objections regarding the upset price fixed were not properly considered by the MACT, though Ext.P2 objections had been filed. 3. Having considered the contentions of the petitioner, I feel that an opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to agitate his objections to the upset price before the MACT. However, an opportunity can be granted only on the petitioner proving his bonafides by depositing a portion of the amount that is claimed. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur to consider the objections of the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P2 and his objections regarding the upset price fixed for the property and to pass orders thereon in accordance with wpc No.10785/2010 3 law on condition that the petitioner remits 50% of the amount claimed in the execution petition within a period of four weeks from today. It is made clear that if the deposit as stipulated above is not made, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 can be continued. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/