IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34912 of 2009(H) -------------------------- OPMV.1418/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANTO V.A., S/O.VALLACHIRAKKARAN KOCHAPPAN, CHERPU DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RAJEEV S., S/O.CHETTIYADI PRABHAKARAN, PULLUT, OOZHUVATHU KADAVU, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL LINES, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), THRISSUR-20. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.34912 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is seeking directions to keep in abeyance steps of recovery initiated pursuant to Ext.P6 and P7 notices. The revenue recovery proceedings in question is initiated for realisation of the amounts covered under Ext.P1 award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. Petitioner is the 1st respondent before the Tribunal, implicated on the basis of the allegation that he is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. According to the petitioner the vehicle in question was sold much prior to the date of accident. However, the petitioner was exparte in Ext.P1 award. 2. According to the petitioner, he was abroad during the time when notice was received and he could not contest the matter properly. He came to know about the award only when notice regarding recovery was received. It is stated that immediately he had approached the Tribunal and filed Ext.P2 interim application seeking to set aside the exparte award along with a petition seeking to condone the delay in filing such petition. But on the date when the matter was posted for W.P.(C).34912/09-H 2 consideration the counsel for the petitioner could not reach the Tribunal and accordingly the interlocutory applications were dismissed as per Ext.P3 and P4 orders. Immediately the petitioner had filed a restoration application as evidenced from Ext.P5. It is submitted that Ext.P5 petition is now pending consideration and disposal before the M.A.C.T. Therefore the limited prayer of the petitioner is only for a direction to keep in abeyance coercive steps of recovery till the Tribunal considers and dispose of Ext.P5 application. 3. Since the petitioner has got effective statutory remedies against Ext.P1 award, correctness of the same cannot be looked into in this writ petition. However, it is evident that the petitioner had resorted to remedy by way of approaching the Tribunal seeking to set aside the award. It is for that Tribunal now to consider as to whether the petitions need be restored and as to whether the ex-parte award need be set aside. 4. Under the above circumstances, considering the contention that the petitioner was not in ownership of the vehicle during the relevant time, and also considering the fact that the petition for restoration is pending consideration and disposal before the Tribunal, I am inclined to direct the steps of recovery to be kept in abeyance for a reasonable time in order to facilitate W.P.(C).34912/09-H 3 the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs from the Tribunal. Needless to say that if the petitioner approaches the Tribunal in an appropriate petition, the Tribunal shall consider an early disposal of the matter. 5. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 2 and 3 to keep in abeyance further coercive steps of recovery pursuant to Ext.P6 and P7 notices for a period of one month from today in order to facilitate the petitioner to seek early disposal of the matter before the Tribunal. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb