IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21917 of 2009(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DIPU,S/O.JACOB,AGED 21 YEARS, KALLANGATHARA HOUSE,KUREEKAD VILLAGE, THRIPUNITHURA,NADAMA,THEKKUMBAGHAM. BY ADV. MR.NAVEEN THOMAS, MR. JIMMY JOHN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM. 2. TAHSILDAR,KANAYANNUR TALUK. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER,KAKKANADU. *ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 IMPLEADED: 4. P.V. BIJU, S/O. VARGHESE, AGED 25 YEARS, PATTACHERRIL HOUSE, PULICKAMALY, MULAMTHURUTHY. 5. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHITTOOR ROAD BRANCH, ERNAKULAM. *ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07/08/2009 IN I.A. NO. 9785/2009. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. P.K. BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.21917/2009-H: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1.: COPY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT DTD. 05/05/2007 IN O.P. (M.V.) NO.327/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PETITION NUMBERED AS I.A. NO. 2147/2009 IN O.P.(M.V). NO. 327/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.3 AND P.3.A: COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES DTD. 19/03/2009 AND 21/03/2009 RESPECTIVELY ISSUED BY R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 12/06/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DTD. 02/07/2009 ISSUED BY R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 21917 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 7th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Pursuant to the observations made by this Court, the Claimant as well as the Insurer (parties before the Tribunal in OP (MV) 327 of 2002) have been sought to be impleaded by filing I.A. 9785 of 2009. The prayer of the petitioner is only to direct the Tribunal to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 petition (IA 2147 of 2009) filed to set aside the exparte award. It is pointed out that the petitioner has also filed a petition to condone the delay in filing the same, as stated in paragraph 4 of the Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the liability was cast upon the petitioner, who was the owner-cum-rider of the motor cycle, after arriving at a finding that the Insurer was not liable to satisfy the claim under the 'Policy' for the fact that no additional premium was paid in this regard. According to the petitioner, the Insurer is liable to satisfy the Award, it being a 'B' Policy (comprehensive Policy). However, whether the Insurer had taken any such specific contention in the written statement or whether the actual facts and circumstances as to the particulars of premium were brought to meticulous analysis is not discernible from Ext.P1 Award. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner did not choose to enter appearance and WP (C) No. 21917 of 2009 : 2 : contest the case, only on the basis of the assurance given by the Insurance Company that since the Policy was valid and in existence, the Insurer would take care of the situation. The petitioner has already approached the Tribunal by filing Ext.P2 I.A. to set aside the ex parte Award, accompanied with a petition to condone the delay in filing the same, which are stated as pending for more than 4 months. The case of the petitioner is that, it is without any regard to the pendency of the said proceedings that the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act has been turned against him vide Exts.P3/P3(a), which is under challenge. 3. Considering the relief proposed to be given in the instance case, this Court does not find it necessary to issue any notice to the persons sought to be impleaded in IA 9785 of 2009 for the time being. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter is intended to be proceeded and pursued by moving the Tribunal, Ext.P3 and P3(a) steps taken under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act are intercepted for a period of 3 months, making it clear that, the petitioner could move the Tribunal for passing appropriate orders on the petitions stated as filed and pending before the Tribunal to set aside the ex-parte award and to condone the delay in filing the same. WP (C) No. 21917 of 2009 : 3 : 4. In the above circumstance, if any petition is filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal to have earlier hearing and disposal of Ext.P2 proceedings, the same shall be considered and finalized on merits by the Tribunal, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 3 months from today. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd