Qaisar Ali vs Collector/District Magistrate ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 1991 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 31
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4322 of 2006
 

 
Petitioner :- Qaisar Ali
 
Respondent :- Collector/District Magistrate And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Hasan Abbas
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.

This petition seeks the quashing of the recovery certificate dated 23rd December, 2005 issued by the Tehsildar Gunnar, District Badaun for recovery of an amount of Rs.54,264/- from the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 21st November, 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in proceedings initiated by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

It transpires from the records of the writ petition that Claim Petition No.12 of 1997 was filed by late Yadram Chaudhary for claiming compensation as he had suffered injuries in the accident which had happened on 12th August, 1996 and the award was made by the Tribunal on 10th August, 2004. The claimant was held entitled to receive an amount of Rs.30,500/- which initially the Insurance Company was required to deposit but liberty was given to the Insurance Company to recover it from the opposite party no.2 ( the petitioner) as the driver (opposite party no.1) did not have a valid license on the date of accident.

It is pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 10th August, 2004 that the Insurance Company initiated proceedings under Section 174 of the Act for recovery of the amount and for compliance of the order dated 21st November, 2005, the Tehsildar issued the recovery certificate.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the award dated 10th August, 2004 that the driver did not have a valid driving license is perverse and, therefore, the Tribunal could not have granted liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle.

This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the award dated 10th August, 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, then the petitioner had a statutory alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 173 of the Act but that was not done and the petitioner permitted the award to attain finality. The petitioner cannot challenge the consequential orders when the main order has attained finality as no appeal was filed.

The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 13.5.2013

SK