MUHAMMAD SHAN Vs. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was arrayed as the 2nd respondent in O.P. (MV) No.445 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, a claim petition filed by the legal representatives of one Raju, who met with a road accident on 03.06.2008, while riding a bicycle from Muvattupuzha to Kothamangalam. At the place of accident, he was hit by an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-44- 5239, driven by the 1st respondent before the Tribunal. The petitioner was arrayed as the 2nd respondent in that claim petition, being the registered owner of that autorickshaw. The Tribunal, by Ext.P1 award dated 03.09.2013, awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,77,000/- to the claimants, together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of claim petition, i.e., from 10.06.2009 till realisation with proportionate cost. The 3rd respondent insurance company was directed to deposit the award amount before the Tribunal and the insurer was permitted to recover the said amount from the petitioner herein and his assets, on a WP(C).No. 5321 of 2019 finding that, since the petitioner and driver of the autorickshaw failed to produce the driving licence and fitness certificate, there is violation of the conditions of insurance policy.

(2.) In terms of Ext.P1 award passed by the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent insurer deposited the award amount together with interest and cost, which has already been disbursed to the claimants. Based on an order passed by the Tribunal invoking Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act on an application made by the 3rd respondent insurer, for initiating revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner, Ext.P4 demand notice has been issued by respondents 1 and 2. Feeling aggrieved by the said demand notice, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 demand notice dated 27.10.2018.

(3.) 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 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.