Uttarakhand High Court
CLR/32/2022 on 18 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
18TH MAY, 2022
CIVIL REVISION NO.32 of 2022
Between:
Gurmeet Kaur and Another ...Revisionists.
and
Amit Kumar ...Respondent.
Counsel for the Revisionists: Mr. G.C. Kandpal, learned
counsel holding brief of Mr.
Vinod Tiwari, learned
counsel.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
This proposed Civil Revision has been filed
under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to
set aside the order dated 25.03.2022, passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/First Additional District
Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Motor
Accident Claims Petition No.9 of 2019, "Amit Kumar
Versus Karnail Singh", whereby, the learned Tribunal has
issued a certificate for the awarded compensation amount
to the Collector, Udham Singh Nagar and directed to the
Collector to proceed to recover the same from the
property of the original judgment debtor, namely, Karnail
Singh, in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.
The Collector is also directed that the amount of the
compensation shall be deposited up to 28.04.2022 after
auction the said property.
2. Heard Mr. G.C. Kandpal, the learned counsel
holding brief of Mr. Vinod Tiwari, learned counsel for the
proposed revisionists.
3. According to Mr. G.C. Kandpal, the learned
counsel, an award was passed against Mr. Karnail Singh.
The proposed Revisionist No.1 is the wife of Mr. Karnail
Singh and the proposed Revisionist No.2 is the son of Mr.
Karnail Singh. The original judgment debtor had died on
12.01.2014. Mr. Karnail Singh had filed an appeal (A.O.
No.447 of 2011) against award dated 22.07.2011. The
said appeal was dismissed for non prosecution on
21.09.2017. The sole objection of Mr. G.C. Kandpal, the
learned counsel against the impugned order dated
25.03.2022, is that the appellant had died before the
dismissal of his appeal for non prosecution. Therefore,
the awarded amount cannot be recovered against the
proposed revisionists.
4. During the arguments, Mr. G.C. Kandpal, the
learned counsel, fairly conceded that the proposed
revisionists are legal heirs of the deceased Karnail Singh
and Mr. Karnail Singh was the sole owner of the said
property. He further conceded that the said property was
received by the proposed revisionists as successor of the
deceased Karnail Singh.
5. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer
to the provisions of Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. Section 174 reads as follows:-
"174. Recovery of money from
insurer as arrear of land revenue- 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 manner as an
arrear of land revenue."
6. An award for compensation was passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against Mr. Karnail Singh.
The said compensation amount was not deposited by
him. The proposed revisionists are the legal heirs of
deceased Mr. Karnail Singh. The said property was
received by the proposed revisionists through succession.
7. In these circumstances, the Tribunal, on an
application made to it by the claimant, has issued a
certificate for the compensation amount to the Collector.
The impugned order has been passed in terms of Section
174 of the said Act, 1988. Therefore, this Court is of the
view that there is no good ground to entertain this
revision. The learned counsel for the revisionist could not
show that the learned Tribunal has not applied its judicial
mind while passing the impugned order or the Tribunal
has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has
failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in
the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material
irregularities. Hence, the Revision is liable to be rejected;
the same is rejected at the admission stage.
__________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 18.05.2022
Ravi
