Suresh v. Deputy Tahsildar (R.R.), Vellarikkundu Taluk Office, Malom VellarikKundu Road, VellarikKundu, Kasaragod - and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 7TH BHADRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.23299 OF 2019(J)** ## **PETITIONER:** **SURESH, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN ACHARI, MANAYKKAPPADIKKAL HOUSE, MANDAPAM.P.O., BHEEMANDY VILLAGE, VELLARIKKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT PIN-671326** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.JIJI SMT.M.M.BABY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (R.R), VELLARIKKUNDU TALUK OFFICE, MALOM VELLARIKKUNU ROAD, VELLARIKKUNDU, KASARAGOD-671533 2 THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, NITHYANANDA BUILDING, MAIN ROAD,KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT PIN - 671315** **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANU RAJ K.J. R2 BY SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.23299 OF 2019(J) : 2 :** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is the 1[st] respondent in OP(MV)No.546/2015 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod, which is a claim petition filed by one Mr.P.M.Jose, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident, which occurred on 11.7.2015, involving a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-60/F-2801, owned and driven by the petitioner. In Ext.P1 award, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of ` 3,53,200/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs. Since the petitioner was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, the 2[nd] respondent insurer, was permitted to recover the amount of compensation paid to the claimant by proceeding against the petitioner. 2. In terms of Ext.P1 award, the 2[nd] respondent insurer paid the amount of compensation to the claimant and thereafter, moved the Tribunal in an application filed under ## **WP(C).No.23299 OF 2019(J) : 3 :** Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for initiating revenue recovery proceedings. Pursuant to the requisition made by the Tribunal, the 1[st] respondent Deputy Tahsildar issued Ext.P3 demand notice dated 09.07.2019, demanding a sum of ` 4,21,137/- together with interest and collection charges from the petitioner. Now, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 revenue recovery notice issued by the 1[st] respondent. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent to grant 24 months' instalment facility to the petitioner for the remittance of the amount demanded as per Ext.P2 notice. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1[st] respondent Deputy Tahsildar and also the learned Standing counsel for the 2[nd] respondent insurer. 4. As held by this Court in **Subaida v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR), Thrissur District and others [2019(1) KHC** **SN 7: ILR 2019(1) Kerala 393]** , if a person is aggrieved by an award passed by the Tribunal under Section 168 of the Act, he has to challenge the same in an appeal filed under Section ## **WP(C).No.23299 OF 2019(J) : 4 :** 173 of the Act, after complying with the statutory mandate of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 173, subject to the time limit prescribed in the second proviso to that sub-rule. The challenge to an order passed by the Tribunal (other than an award passed under Section 168) has to be one invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The challenge to such an order of the District Judge, as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, has to be made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not under Article 226. Being part of the district judiciary, the District Judge acts as a court and the order passed by him is an order of the subordinate court against which remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be availed on the matters delineated for exercise of such jurisdiction, which is supervisory in nature. 5. In **Subaida's case** (supra), this Court held further that, as per Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, where any amount is due from any person under an award, the Claims Tribunal may, on an application made to it by the person entitled to the amount, issue a certificate for the amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover the same in the same ## **WP(C).No.23299 OF 2019(J) : 5 :** manner as an arrear of land revenue. The order of the Claims Tribunal under Section 174 of the Act, to initiate revenue recovery, based on an application made by the person entitled to the amount as per the award, is also an order against which remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be availed. In an O.P.(MAC) filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner can seek a time bound disposal of any interlocutory applications filed after the award passed by the Claims Tribunal and stay of operation of the order of the Claims Tribunal under Section 174 of the Act, and all recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to that order. For seeking such reliefs, it is for the petitioner to file an O.P.(MAC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, if a person against whom revenue recovery proceedings are initiated by issuing a demand notice pursuant to the order of the Claims Tribunal under Section 174 of the Act requires only time for payment of the dues in monthly instalments, he can approach this Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the person entitled to the amount as per the award and also the revenue officials in the party array. ## **WP(C).No.23299 OF 2019(J) : 6 :** 6. In the absence of any appeal filed by the petitioner, Ext.P1 award has attained finality. Ext.P3 demand notice has been issued, since the petitioner failed to pay the amount in terms of that award. Therefore, no interference is warranted on Ext.P3 demand notice dated 09.07.2019 issued by the 1[st] respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is prepared to pay off the entire dues demanded in Ext.P3 together with future interest and collection charges in monthly instalments, for which he requires a reasonable time. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2[nd] respondent insurer would submit that if the petitioner is prepared to pay off the entire dues, with future interest and collection charges in monthly instalments, the insurer has no objection in this Court granting a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to effect such payment. 9. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions; (i) The petitioner shall pay off the entire dues ## **WP(C).No.23299 OF 2019(J) : 7 :** demanded in Ext.P3 demand notice, together with future interest, in **ten** equal monthly instalments, commencing from **20.09.2019** and the subsequent instalments payable on or before the **20[th]** day of the succeeding months, by remitting the same before the 1[st] respondent Deputy Tahsildar. (ii) On such remittance being made, the 1[st] respondent shall deposit the said amount with the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod in OP(MV)No.546 of 2015 and thereafter, it would be open to the 2[nd] respondent insurer to withdraw the same. (iii) The petitioner shall also pay the collection charges and other expenses, if any, payable to the 1[st] respondent in terms of Ext.P3 demand notice, on or before 20.09.2019 and a memo to that effect shall be produced before the Tribunal. (iv) If the petitioner is remitting the aforesaid instalments in time, without any default, all recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 demand notice shall be kept in abeyance, so as to enable the petitioner to pay off the entire dues, as above. **WP(C).No.23299 OF 2019(J) : 8 :** (v) In case of any default committed by the petitioner in remitting any one of the aforesaid instalments, it would be open to the 1[st] respondent to proceed further with the coercive steps initiated under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, for recovering the amount payable as per Ext.P3 demand notice. Sd/- **ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** Bb **WP(C).No.23299 OF 2019(J) : 9 :** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN O.P. (M.V)NO.546/2015 DATED 30.06.2017 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KASARAGOD DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 21.06.2019 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE AND ATTACHMENT NOTICE DATED 09.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** NIL **//True Copy//** **P.A. To Judge** **Bb**