VARGHESE V Vs. SUNNY M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the appellant. He moved this Court by challenging Ext. P2 order dated 2-12-2008 in E.A. No. 13/2008 in E.P. No. 24/2006 in O.P(MV) No. 448/1996 of M.A.C.T., Pala.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are the following: The award in O.P. (MV) No.448/1996 has become final, as the appeal preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner against it has already been dismissed by this court. The claimant moved for execution of the award. The Tribunal issued a certificate under Section 174 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to the District Collector for recovery of the amount, invoking the provisions under the Revenue Recovery Act. While so, the appellant preferred Ext. P1 application in the execution Petition before the Tribunal, claiming mat he is entitled to the protection of Section 60(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. But, the Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that Revenue Recovery Certificate has already been issued to the Collector and therefore, the remedy of the appellant lies before the Revenue Recovery Authority. Aggrieved by that order, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the exemption available under Section 60(1)(c) of the C.P.C. cannot be claimed in revenue recovery proceedings. This Writ Appeal is filed, challenging the above judgment of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) The appellant submitted that in view of Rule 394 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 all the provisions of the C.P.C. concerning execution of a decree are applicable to the execution of an award. The Tribunal has issued the Revenue Recovery Certificate in an execution petition filed by the claimant. Therefore, the Tribunal was bound to consider Ext. P1 application on merits, it is submitted. The learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. S. Muhammed Haneef took us through the provisions of Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 394 and 395 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules and also Section 60 of the C.P.C. The learned Counsel also brought to our notice the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala , wherein it was held that all the provisions of the C.P.C. will apply to execution of awards by the M.A.C.T., by virtue of Rule 394 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. Any confusion that was created by the provisions of Rule 395 of the said Rules has been cleared by the said Division Bench judgment, it is submitted.