K. Raghavan vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The petitioner in both the writ petitions is the owner of the vehicle which was involved in a road traffic accident which led to different claim petitions filed before the MACT as OP(MV) Nos. 1946/2001 and 1947/2001. On conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal passed Ext.P2 Award, granting compensation to the claimants concerned and directing the Insurer to satisfy the same. However, it is observed that the insurer would be entitled to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle, in view of the violation of the statute/policy conditions. The owner of the vehicle is before this Court challenging the steps taken by the revenue authorities at the instance of the insurer, mainly contending that there is no specific finding to enable the insurer to recover the said amount.

The learned Counsel for the insurer brought it to the notice of this Court that the non-satisfaction of the liability by the owner was sought to be agitated before the Tribunal by filing the concerned I.A. u/s 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the same was allowed, followed by recovery proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act which are under challenge. It is also submitted that there is no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner, in so far as there is a specific finding in ''paragraph 18'' of Ext.P2 Award, holding that the third respondent/insurer is entitled to recover the due amount from the owner of the vehicle after satisfying the liability to the claimants and as such, no interference is warranted.

There is no representation for the petitioner in both the cases. It appears that the petitioner is no more interested with the cause of action projected in the writ petitions. Both the writ petitions are dismissed for default.