IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 7963 of 2007(W) ------------------------- OPMV.202/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.M.SUHRA ABDULLAH, W/O. ABDULLA (LATE), KARANCHERY HOUSE, ENKAKKAD POST, THRISSUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.P.BHASKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALAPPILLY, WADAKKANCHERY POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), TALUK OFFICE, TALAPPILLY, WADAKKANCHERY POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ENKAKAD VILLAGE, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, PALAI. 6. PARUKUTTY W/O. NEELAKANDAN, MUKKANPARAYIL HOUSE, AREEKARA KARA, UZHAVOOR VILLAGE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 7963/07. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE THRISSUR MUNICIPALITY DTD.2.6.97. P2. COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE MACT PALAI IN OP(MV) 202/2000 FILED BY R6 DTD.11.8.04. P3. COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE BY R3 DTD.22.2.06. P4. COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE BY R3 DTD.22.6.06. P5. COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE R1 DTD.7.3.2007. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.7963 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The widow of late Abdulla, Karanchery House, Enkakkad Post, Thrissur District, is the petitioner herein. She is challenging Ext.P2 award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palai, in O.P. (M.V) No.202/2000 and, Exts.P3 and P4 revenue recover proceedings, wherein an amount of Rs.7250/- with interest and costs as per Ext.P2 award is sought to be recovered from the petitioner as the legal heir of late Abdulla, who was found to be liable to pay compensation, to the 6th respondent herein, for the injuries suffered by her on account of an accident caused by a motor cycle which was once owned by the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is that the said Abdulla, Karancherry House, died on 31.5.1997, whereas O.P.(M.V). No.202/2000 was filed before the M.A.C.T. subsequently. Therefore, the award passed in the O.P.(M.V.) with a dead person in the party array directing the dead person to pay compensation cannot be enforced is the contention raised. She further submits that the address shown in Ext.P2 award itself is wrong, which has been deliberately done to get an award without the legal heirs contesting the matter. She submits that her husband had sold the motor cycle to the 2nd respondent in the O.P(M.V.) long before his death. Therefore, if at all w.p.c.7963/07 2 anybody was liable, that was only the 2nd respondent in the O.P(M.V). 2. None of the respondents have chosen to appear and contest the matter. 3. At the same time, the petitioner has not chosen to implead respondents 2 and 3 in the O.P(M.V)., in this writ petition. I had obtained a report from the M.A.C.T., who would submit that the notice issued to the 1st respondent in the O.P(M.V). viz., Sri.Abdulla, was returned several times with the endorsement, “not known”. Therefore, the petitioner in the O.P (M.V). had taken out notice by substituted service by paper publication. It is thereafter that the award was passed setting the 1st respondent in the O.P(M.V). ex parte. 4. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has produced Ext.P1 death certificate of Abdulla, which proves that he died on 31.5.1997. That being so, it is clear that Ext.P2 award was passed in an O.P.(M.V.), which was filed three years after the death of the said person with the dead person in the party array who has been found liable to pay compensation. For that reason alone, Ext.P2 award is clearly liable to be set aside. I do so. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is directed to restore O.P (M.V.) No.202/2000 to file and readjudicate the same afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner in this writ petition would see that the legal heirs of Abdulla are impleaded themselves as additional w.p.c.7963/07 3 respondents and place their contentions on record. The M.A.C.T. shall afford opportunity to all parties to adduce evidence and, pass fresh award in accordance with law, expeditiously. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge