IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24554 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.AHAMMED, SHAMEER MANZIL, SIVAPURAM P.O., VIA. MATTANNUR, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), THALASSERY. 2. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, THALASSERY BRANCH, JUBILEE SHOPPING COMPLEX, THALASSERY. 3. K.SAMAD, S/O.MAMMU, KOLARI, KALLUR, THALASSERY. 4. ABDUL JABBAR, S/O.ABDU, KOLARI, PORORA, THALASSERY. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. P.K. BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 24554 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. KRS.6082. It is the case of the petitioner that he had sold the vehicle to the third respondent as per the sale agreement dated 02.04.1997 and that the said respondent had subsequently sold the vehicle to the 4th respondent on 20.10.2000. The petitioner is aggrieved of Exts. P2 and P3 notices issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, demanding huge amounts stated as liable to be paid by the petitioner in connection with the award passed by the M.A.C.T, Thalassery in O.P.(MV)No.1656 of 2001. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after transfer of the vehicle as per Ext. P1, the petitioner had absolutely no idea or connection with the said vehicle any further and that he has not received any notice from the Tribunal in this regard. However, the fact remains that the above vehicle got W.P.(C) No. 24554 OF 2009 2 involved in a road traffic accident causing injuries to the person concerned, who filed O.P.(MV)No.1656 of 2001, seeking compensation from the registered owner as well. It is also reasonably presumed that the Tribunal, by virtue of the contention taken by the insurer as to the violation of the policy conditions, permitted the insurer to recover the due amount from the owner of the vehicle, after satisfying the liability towards the third party/Claimant and that it is pursuant to such requisition made by the insurer that Exts.P2/P3 demand notices have been issued invoking the relevant provisions under the Revenue Recovery Act. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is very much aware of the statutory remedy available and that such steps are being pursued. The petitioner has approached this Court only because of the fact that no notice whatsoever was served to the petitioner before finalisation of the award passed by the Tribunal and is now confronted with Exts.P2/P3 notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act. 4. Obviously, the remedy of the petitioner, if aggrieved of W.P.(C) No. 24554 OF 2009 3 the award passed by the Tribunal in O.P.(MV)No. 1656 of 2001 is only by way of an appeal under section 173 of the M..V. Act or by filing a petition to review the award stated as passed behind the petitioner. This being the position, absolutely no interference is called for in the present Writ Petition. 5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that appropriate steps are being pursued to avail the remedy as provided under the Statute; for which some breathing time is sought for, it is made clear that the coercive steps stated as being pursued on the basis of Exts.P2 and P3 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk