IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22504 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.B.PAREETH, SON OF BAVA, AGED 47 YEARS, CHATHANATTU HOUSE, NELLIKUZHI P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TAHASILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, ELENGICAL PLAZA, KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. NAZEER P.K., SON OF KOCHAHAMMED, PUTHEN PURACKAL, ERAMALLUR, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691. BY G.P.SRI.BIJOY RAMACHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22504 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 demand notice issued by the first respondent for the realisation of an amount of Rs.9,156/-with 5% commission being the amount awarded to the claimant in O.P(M.V) 804/2001 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. The injuries were sustained by the claimant in a motor accident involving the bus owned by the petitioner. Third respondent was the driver of the vehicle. According to the petitioner, he had entrusted the third respondent to contest the case. However, third respondent did not contest the case and therefore, Ext.P3 ex-parte award was passed awarding an amount of Rs.6,900/- as compensation to the claimant. The award has further permitted the second respondent to realise the amount from the petitioner and the third respondent jointly and severally. Pursuant to the award, the compensation amount was deposited by the insurer and thereafter, a Revenue Recovery certificate was issued for the realisation of the amount. Accordingly, the first respondent has W.P.(C) No.22504 OF 2010 2 issued Ext.P4 notice of demand to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner contends that he has filed Ext.P5 petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor for setting aside the ex-parte award passed against him and the third respondent. This petition is accompanied by Ext.P6 petition for condonation of delay. Therefore, he prays for keeping in abeyance the recovery proceedings until Exts.P5 and P6 are considered and finally disposed of. 3. I heard the learned Government Pleader also in the matter. 4. The question as to whether the ex-parte award passed against the petitioner should be set aside or not after condoning the delay that has been occasioned, is to be considered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. For the purpose, the petitioner has already filed Ext.P6 petition, which is pending. Only if the Tribunal condones the delay, the necessity of considering Ext.P5 review petition would arise. If the delay is condoned, the petitioner can certainly seek proper interim orders from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal itself. Therefore, it is sufficient that Ext.P6 is directed to be disposed of. W.P.(C) No.22504 OF 2010 3 In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor to consider the petition for condonation of delay Ext.P6, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously. Until Ext.P6 petition is disposed of further proceedings of the first respondent to recover the amounts demanded in Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge cms