IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 8631 of 2011(D) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- T.R. SABU, S/O.T.M. RAPHEL, THAZHAPPIL HOUSE, EDAKOCHI.P.O, KOCHI -6. BY ADVS. SRI.VIPIN P.VARGHESE SMT.ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, COCHIN-1. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., WILLINTON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 003. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAKOCHI, KOCHI - 682 001. R1, R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 8631/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENCE DATED 10/07/2009. P2: COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 31/10/2009 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.8631 of 2011-D ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Revenue recovery steps initiated on the basis of Ext.P2 notice for realising amounts due under Ext.P3 award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravoor, is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner who is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, is the 1st respondent in Ext.P3 award. The Tribunal had directed the 2nd respondent herein to make payment of the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the claimant, with liberty reserved in favour of them to realise such amounts from the petitioner herein. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that, he was having no knowledge about the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and that Ext.P3 is an award passed on an ex- parte basis. It is further stated that, challenging Ext.P3, the petitioner had already approached the appellate court and the appellate court (this court) has already issued notice on the delay condonation application filed along with the appeal. It is stated that, the petitioner is not in a position to seek appropriate W.P(C) No.8631 of 2011-D 2 interim relief from the appellate court, since the delay has not been condoned. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this court in restraining the coercive steps of recovery for a reasonable period, in order to facilitate the petitioner to seek relief from the appellate court. 3. Heard; counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. Eventhough interference on merits is not warranted in view of the appellate remedy available, I am of the view that, interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to keep in abeyance the recovery steps for a reasonable period in order to facilitate the petitioner to seek interim relief from the appellate court. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery initiated pursuant to Ext.P2 notice for a period of two months from today, in order to facilitate the petitioner to seek appropriate interim relief from the appellate court. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab