Important points
" An award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is appealable before this Court, under Section 173 of the said Act-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 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.

1. The petitioner, who is the 1st respondent in O.P.(MV)No.1222 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Thrissur/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 demand notice dated 24.10.2018 issued by the 1st respondent Deputy Tahsildar; a writ of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent insurer of the petitioner's motor car bearing registration No.KL-14/D-9006 to satisfy Ext.P1 award of the Tribunal dated 29.12.2016 in O.P.(MV)No.1222 of 2009, in terms of Ext.P2 driving licence of the 3rd respondent, who was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident, and exonerate the petitioner from the liability of Ext.P1; declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount due as per Ext.P1 award; and direct the III Additional District Court, Thrissur/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur to pass orders in I.A.No.11329 of 2017 in O.P(MV)No.1222 of 2009, an interlocutory application stated to have been filed by the 3rd respondent driver, seeking review of Ext.P1 award, within such time as this Court deems fit.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent.

3. The issue that has to be considered in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to file this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the aforesaid reliefs, instead of filing an O.P.(MAC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the motor car bearing registration No.KL-14/D-9006 owned by the petitioner met with an accident on 08.03.2009, while it was being driven by the 3rd respondent. In that accident, the 2nd respondent herein, a pedestrian, sustained injuries. At the time of accident, the vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy issued by the 4th respondent insurer. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent was holding Ext.P2 driving licence, at the time of accident. The 2nd respondent herein filed O.P.(MV)No.1222 of 2009 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming a total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in that motor accident. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent herein filed written statement disputing the rashness and negligence attributed against the 3rd respondent. The 4th respondent insurer filed written statement disputing the quantum of compensation and admitting the insurance coverage of the offending vehicle. In the written statement, it was contended that the 3rd respondent had no effective driving licence at the time of accident and as such, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured.

5. Considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal passed Ext.P1 award on 29.12.2016, awarding a total compensation of Rs.4,29,192/- to the 2nd respondent claimant, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 18.06.2009, the date of the petition, till realisation with proportionate cost. As per the award dated 29.12.2016, the 4th respondent insurer was saddled with the liability to pay the amount of compensation, on the ground that, though the insurer had raised a contention that the 3rd respondent driver had no driving licence at the time of accident, the counsel for the insurer had reported that the driver had driving licence for Light Motor Vehicle, which was recorded by the Tribunal in the proceedings on 17.12.2016.

6. After the award, the 4th respondent insurer filed I.A.No.1614 of 2017, seeking review, stating that the 3rd respondent driver, at the time of accident, did not have driving licence for driving motor car. Relying on the document produced as Ext.B2, which was the driving licence particulars of the 3rd respondent, the Tribunal by order dated 17.02.2017 reviewed the award dated 29.12.2016 and the i