Smitha vs Tahasildar, Mukundapuram
2022 Latest Caselaw 3208 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3208 Ker
Judgement Date : 18 March, 2022

Kerala High Court

Smitha vs Tahasildar, Mukundapuram on 18 March, 2022

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
     FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 7453 OF 2012
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 539/2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
                          CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PALA
PETITIONER:

          SMITHA,
          AGED 34 YEARS,
          WIFE OF PUSHPAKARAN ERUMAKADAN, MUPALAYAM VILLAGE,
          MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.BOBY MATHEW
          SRI.E.T.MATHEW


RESPONDENTS:

    1     TAHASILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
          IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680121

    2     NAZAR K.,
          SON OF KOCHUNNI USAF VADAKETHU HOUSE,
          MARAVANTHURUTHU KARA, KULASEKHSRA MANGALAM VILLAGE,
          KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686001

    3     ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
          THODUPUZHA - 685584

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
          SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.



          BY ADV. SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 7453 OF 2012                     -2-



                                     JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed with following prayers:

"a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction quashing the revenue recovery proceedings initiated under Ext.P1 for realization of the amounts mentioned therein;

b) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing Respondents 2 and 3 not to proceed against the property in Ext.P1 for realization of the amount as per the Award in OP (MV) 539 of 2006 passed by the MACT, Pala;

c) Pass such other orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and Award costs of the proceedings to the petitioners."

2. The petitioner is the wife of a transferor owner

of a mini lorry bearing No.KL 3A 990. The vehicle

involved in an accident which resulted in an award by the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala in OP (MV) No.539

of 2006. The husband of the petitioner was arrayed as a

respondent in the above claim petition as the owner of

the vehicle. In the award the direction is to pay the

compensation by the insurance company and the

insurance company was given liberty to recover the

compensation from the owner, driver etc. Admittedly

petitioner is not a party in that proceedings. The

recovery proceedings was initiated as evident from Ext.P1

against the husband of the petitioner. The husband of

the petitioner has not challenged the same.

2. When this writ petition came for consideration

on 23.03.2012 this Court passed the following order:

" Admit. Urgent Notice to respondent Nos.1 and

2. Learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the third respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the husband of the petitioner who was the first respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is now in jail in Saudi Arabia and the petitioner is unable to raise the money to satisfy the award.

3. The amount is due to the Insurance Company. Going by Ext.P1, the public auction of the property is scheduled on 26/03/2012. There will be a stay of further action pursuant to Ext.P1 for a period of three months on the petitioner remitting an amount of Rs.25,000/- within a period of two months."

3. Even though the interim order was extended till

20.11.2012, the same was not extended thereafter.

When this writ petition came for final hearing there was

no representation for the petitioner. Admittedly the

petitioner is not a party in the award passed by the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal. Moreover the revenue

recovery proceedings is also not against the petitioner. In

such circumstances the petitioner may not have any

grievance against the revenue recovery proceedings. The

recovery proceedings are against the husband of the

petitioner and if he is aggrieved by the same, he is at

liberty to challenge the same. Therefore there is no merit