IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 7845 of 2010(E) ------------------------------------- [AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/01/2010 IN IA.NO. 1144/2009 IN O.P(MV).NO.77/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- BABU VARGHESE, VALAYIL HOUSE,ATTUCHIRA, KUTTAPUZHA,THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SASI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 2. SUNNY P.M, PUNNASSERRIKUNNEL HOUSE, NAMLUKNNAKKAL P.O,VAKATHANAM,KOTTYAM. 3. SINOJ VARGHESE, MALAYIL VEEDU,PUTHEN CHANTHA,VAKATHANAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.P.K.PANICKER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.7845 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 award of the MACT in O.P(MV)No.77 of 2005. According to the petitioner, he had sold the vehicle that was involved in the accident in which the claimant had suffered injuries, to another person as early as on 19.5.2001. The accident occurred only on 22.4.2004. According to the petitioner, he had engaged a lawyer to conduct his case, but the lawyer had not represented him, resulting in the passing of an exparte award. The real owner of the vehicle is stated to be one Nazar. Therefore, the petitioner prays for a fresh opportunity to contest the matter. 2. Mr.V.R.K.Panicker, who appears for the first respondent points out that the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the award by filing an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. When a specific remedy by way of appeal is provided under the Act, it is not open to the petitioner to approach this court by filing this writ petition. It is also submitted that the entire award amount has been paid Wpc 7845/2010 2 by the first respondent, Insurance Company. Thereafter, action has been initiated for recovery of the amount so paid from the petitioner. It was in the above circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed. The counsel also points out that though the name of one Nazar is stated as the person who had purchased the vehicle from the petitioner, he has not been made a party. Nor is his identity or whereabouts disclosed. 3. Since the petitioner has an effective statutory remedy by way of an appeal for challenging the award Ext.P4, I do not think that it is necessary to entertain this writ petition. The petitioner can agitate all the contentions that he has raised in this writ petition, in a regular appeal that he may file against Ext.P4 award. It is upto the petitioner to make the purchaser of his vehicle also a party to such proceedings. Reserving the liberty of the petitioner to make the purchaser of his vehicle liable for the award amount in Ext.P4, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk