IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10002 of 2010(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- BINEESH K.T., S/O.THAMPAN, AGED 33 YEARS RESIDING AT KOCHATHI HOUSE, ILLITHODE, MALAYATTOOR P.O., MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.G.P.SHINOD MR.RAM MOHAN.G. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), ALUVA, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. BINOJ P.A., AGED 27 YEARS S/O.AYYAPPAN, RESIDING AT PARACKAL HOUSE, ILLITHODE, MALAYATTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. BIJU P.S., S/O.SAURU, AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT PADASSERY HOUSE, ILLITHODE, MALAYATTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. SAJU M.A., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN, MANEKKADU HOUSE, ILLITHODE P.O., MALAYATTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. SURESH K.G., S/O.GOPINATHAN, KADALICKA PARAMBIL HOUSE, ILLITHODE, MALAYATTOOR P.O., KALADY VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, IIND FLOOR, PMS BUILDING, ELOOR ROAD, KALAMASSERY-683104. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No.10002 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the revenue recovery proceedings stated as being pursued, at the instance of the 'Insurer' of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL7/AL 851, which was involved in a road traffic accident on 15.8.2004, causing injuries to different persons leading to different claim petitions filed before the MACT, Perumbavoor, which culminated in Ext.P5 Common Award passed on 9.2.2009, whereby compensation was awarded to the injured/ claimants directing the Insurer to satisfy the same, with liberty to have it recovered later from the owner of the vehicle, in view of the violation of the statutory /policy conditions. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the finding in Ext.P5 Common Award as to the violation of the statutory/policy condition, is not correct or proper and that an 'adverse inference' has been drawn W.P.(C).No.10002 of 2010 2 against the petitioner for not producing the 'fitness certificate', which was stated as expired as on the relevant date. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that, there was a valid fitness certificate and valid coverage under the insurance policy, under which circumstance no recovery is possible, at the instance of the Insurer. But the fact remains that, the petitioner did not choose to enter appearance before the Tribunal, despite the service of notice. It is stated, that the petitioner has already filed Exts.P6 to P11 petitions before the Tribunal, seeking to set aside the 'exparte award' and to have the matter considered on merits after condoning the delay in filing the same and also for interim stay, which are stated as pending. 3. Considering the limited nature of the relief prayed for and proposed to be given, this Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to the respondents 2 to 7 and the matter is being disposed of after hearing the learned Government Pleader who entered appearance on behalf of W.P.(C).No.10002 of 2010 3 the 1st respondent. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner could be permitted to pursue the proceedings already filed before the Tribunal, to get the impugned 'exparte award' set aside and to have the matter decided on merits, with regard to the 'actual liability' to satisfy the award amount and as to the 'right of recovery' reserved in favour of the Insurer. This Court also does not find it necessary to cause the claimants or others concerned to be present before the Tribunal as well, as the dispute is only with regard to the 'right of the recovery', reserved in favour of the Insurer (3rd respondent before the Tribunal and the 2nd respondent in this writ petition). 5. In the above facts and circumstances, the MACT, Perumbavoor is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P6 to P11 petitions filed by the petitioner herein, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner as well as the concerned Insurer, (i.e. the W.P.(C).No.10002 of 2010 4 3rd respondent before the Tribunal), with regard to the 'right of recovery' reserved in favour of the Insurer. Appropriate orders shall be passed as above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. It is made clear that the coercive proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner as per Exts.P1 to P4 shall be kept in abeyance; till such final orders are passed on the above proceedings, on condition that, the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) within one week. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE nl