IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26203 of 2008(T) --------------------------------------- O.P.(MV).NO.2213/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- P.I.ABDUL NAZEER ,S/O. ISMAIL P.M., 5/262 A, ANCHUNIRA THUNDIYIL HOUSE, TRIKKAKARA, KARIMAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE ERNAKULAM. 3. M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AJAY VIHAR, IST FLOOR, P.B.NO. 1715, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALLIATH, SC, FOR R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26203/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard both sides. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1. Ext.P1 has been issued at the instance of the 3rd respondent Insurance Company. The standing counsel points out that in pursuance to Ext.P2 award rendered by the MACT, Perumbavoor in OP(MV).No.2213/2001 the 3rd respondent has discharged the liability and in terms of the award, steps have now been taken by the 3rd respondent for realising the amount from the petitioner, by taking recourse to the revenue recovery proceedings. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the award is an ex-parte award and that notice was not served on him. It is also stated that the petitioner intends to pursue WP(c).No.26203/2008 2 the statutory remedies that are available against the award, as according to him, he has very good case on merits. 3. As already noticed, Ext.P1 is initiated at the instance of the 3rd respondent in terms of the direction issued by the MACT, Perumbavoor in Ext.P2 Award. If so, petitioner cannot assail the revenue recovery proceedings contending that it was an ex-parte award. 4. After hearing both sides, taking into account the submission that the petitioner is proposing to file an appeal, in order to enable the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedies, I direct that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 be deferred for a period of one month from today. 5. Counsel for the 3rd respondent expressed the apprehension that in the meanwhile if the petitioner alienates his properties, recovery could be rendered futile. When this submission was made, counsel for the petitioner has undertaken before me that whatever movable or immovable that he has, will not be encumbered or WP(c).No.26203/2008 3 alienated, so long as Ext.P1 is kept in abeyance on the orders of this court. This submission is recorded. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.26203/2008 4