IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10250 of 2006(T) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 6955/2005 IN MVOP.1947/2001 of M.A.C.T., THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K. RAGHAVAN, S/O. KUNHAPPA, AGED 64 YEARS, KOMBRA HOUSE, HOUSE NO.411/1, MUNDAYAD P.O., VAROM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KANNUR DIVISION, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR), KANNUR. ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/08/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 10252 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) Nos. 10250 and 10252 of 2006 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in both the writ petitions is the owner of the vehicle which was involved in a road traffic accident which led to different claim petitions filed before the MACT as OP(MV) Nos.1946/2001 and 1947/2001. On conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal passed Ext.P2 Award, granting compensation to the claimants concerned and directing the Insurer to satisfy the same. However, it is observed that the insurer would be entitled to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle, in view of the violation of the statute/policy conditions. The owner of the vehicle is before this Court challenging the steps taken by the revenue authorities at the instance of the insurer, mainly contending that there is no specific finding to enable the insurer to recover the said amount. 2. The learned counsel for the insurer brought it to the notice of this Court that the non-satisfaction of the liability by the owner was sought to be agitated before the Tribunal by filing the concerned I.A. under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act and WPC.10250&10252/06 : 2 : the same was allowed, followed by recovery proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act which are under challenge. It is also submitted that there is no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner, in so far as there is a specific finding in 'paragraph 18' of Ext.P2 Award, holding that the third respondent/insurer is entitled to recover the due amount from the owner of the vehicle after satisfying the liability to the claimants and as such, no interference is warranted. There is no representation for the petitioner in both the cases. It appears that the petitioner is no more interested with the cause of action projected in the writ petitions. Both the writ petitions are dismissed for default. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) aks