IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37273 of 2008(K) -------------------------- OPMV.70/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... PETITIONER: -------------- M.S.BINU RAJ,MANNAKKATTU HOUSE, ALANADU,BHARANANGANAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABY THOMAS SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.HARIDAS SRI.J.PRAKASH C.VADAKKAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PALA. R1 TO R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 37273 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner was the claimant in OP(MV) No.70/2004 before the MACT, Pala. Award was passed by the Tribunal against the second respondent, by which the second respondent was directed to pay an amount of Rs.77,300/- with interest and other charges. 2. According to the petitioner award has become final and despite that the amount was not deposited. Petitioner filed E.P.No. 134/2007 for execution of the award and finally the Tribunal issued Exhibit P2 order directing issuance of Revenue Certificate to the first respondent for realising the amount from the second respondent. 3. Petitioner submits that though Exhibit P2 was issued as early as on 20/11/2007, so far recovery has not been effected. It is with that complaint, this writ petition has been filed praying to direct the first respondent to recover the amount due from the 2nd respondent. 4. It is seen that Exhibit P2 order was passed by the Tribunal on 20/11/2007. According to the petitioner, in spite of lapse of more than one year, so far no recovery has been effected. This shows the sad W.P.(C) No. 37273 / 2008 2 state of affairs. The petitioner being the victim of an accident and having suffered injuries, the second respondent ought to have satisfy the award even without an execution petition. As already seen, on account of the failure of the second respondent in satisfying the award, the Tribunal passed Exhibit P2 and the first respondent has to effect the recovery without any delay. Since, inordinate delay in realising this amount has already been caused, I direct the first respondent to take further action in this recovery of the amount due to the petitioner consequent to the award under O.P(MV) No.70/2004 and this shall be done as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm