IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 11136 of 2008(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SMT.LATHA MATHEW, W/O.MATHEW CYRIAC, 32/2241,CHENNOTH HOUSE, CIVIL LANE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. PARAMESWARAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT THEKKEMEKKATTU HOUSE, THENNATHOOR KARA, KODIKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. KURIAN, S/O.THOMAS, KANNIKULATHIL HOUSE, VENMATTAM, THOMMANKUTHU P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PALARIVATTOM BRANCH, COCHIN. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM- 682011. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPPALLY (S) VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN. R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA). R4 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 11136/2008-A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 26/03/2005 IN OP(MV)NO.638/2003 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL THODUPUZHA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NIL DATED ISSUED UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE R.R. ACT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REVENUE REOVERY NOTICE DATED 10/12/2007 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE R.R. ACT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.976/2008 IN O.P.(MV)NO.638/2003 FILED BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA, DATED 29/03/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 11136 OF 2008 ......................................................................... Dated this the 29th September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The issue involved in this Writ Petition is whether the Tribunal is correct and justified in permitting the Insurer of the vehicle concerned to recover the amount (after satisfying the liability to the claimant), from the petitioner, who was the former owner of the vehicle in whose name, the insurer had admittedly issued the Policy accepting the premium, especially when a specific finding was arrived at by the Tribunal that, on the date of the accident, the vehicle was in the name of the 'second respondent' herein and not in the name of the petitioner. 2. The sequence of events as discernible from the impugned Award as well as the Writ petition shows that the claimant while riding a motor cycle collided with a Maruti van bearing registration No.KL.7/AA.2404, owned earlier by the petitioner herein, (which however was subsequently transferred W.P.(C) No. 11136 OF 2008 2 and came to the hands of the second respondent/registered owner). This gave rise to the claim before the M.A.C.T. Thodupuza as O.P.(MV) 638 of 2003, wherein the petitioner was shown as the first respondent, the actual registered owner-cum- driver of the Maruti van was shown as the second respondent and the Insurer was shown as the third respondent. The petitioner as well as the second respondent chose to remain ex parte. The Insurer took up a contention disputing the liability stating that the Policy, in fact, was issued in the name of the petitioner herein, while the vehicle stood in the name of the second respondent and this being the position, there was no privity of contract so as to indemnify the second respondent and to satisfy the claim. 3. On conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that, on the date of the accident i.e. 12.04.2003, the 'second respondent' was the actual owner of the vehicle and that since the second respondent himself was driving the vehicle, the liability very much stood upon the shoulders of the second respondent. But since the Insurer admitted issuance of the W.P.(C) No. 11136 OF 2008 3 Policy in respect of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner herein, the Insurer was directed to satisfy the Award, however permitting the Insurer to have it recovered either from the petitioner herein or from the second respondent/the registered owner. 4. Pursuant to the above verdict, steps were taken by the Insurance Company to have the due amount recovered from the petitioner by sending requisition to the revenue authorities, which made the petitioner to approach this Court (mainly challenging the recovery proceedings). The petitioner has also approached the Tribunal by filing Ex. P4 petition to set aside the ex parte Award and it was thereafter, that the petitioner approached this Court by filing the above Writ petition for immediate intervention in view of the revenue recovery proceedings.. 5. The Writ petition was admitted by this Court on 01.04.2008, also granting interim stay of all further proceedings. It is very much relevant to note that the only prayer in the Writ petition is to direct the respondents 4 and 5 not to proceed with W.P.(C) No. 11136 OF 2008 4 Exts.P2 and P3 notices, till a decision is taken on Ext.P4 by the M.A.C.T., Thodupuzha. It is not brought to the notice of this Court whether Ext. P4 is actually pending as on date. In the above circumstance, the Writ petition is disposed of directing the M.A.C.T., Thodupuzha to consider and pass orders on Ext. P4 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if it is still pending. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this verdict before the Tribunal for further steps. The recovery proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Exts. P2 and P3 shall be kept in abeyance till such time. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk