Recovery of amounts under motor vehicle awards can be executed through salary attachment under the Revenue Recovery Act, subject to CPC limitations.

JUDGMENT :

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

1. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3, a notice issued by the revenue recovery authorities, pursuant to a requisition made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, for realising the amount in OP(MV) Nos. 624/2007 and 725/2007.

2. By an award dated 31.03.2016, the Tribunal allowed the claim petitions and permitted the insurance company to pay and recover. Thereafter, the insurance company deposited the amount ordered by the Tribunal, after which the insurer filed E.P.No.413 of 2016 seeking to recover the amount paid by him to satisfy the award.

3. Proceedings were initiated to recover an amount of Rs.18,20,687/- with 9% interest from 19.08.2016 on the principal amount of Rs. 10,11,000/- till the date of realisation. Ext.P2 is a copy of the Execution Application filed by the insurer, as stated above. Since there was no immovable property belonging to the petitioner, the second respondent issued Ext.P3 directing the third respondent to recover an amount of Rs. 24,57,616/- with interest at the rate of 9% from 29.05.2007 with 7% collection charges and notice charges and directing the recovery of an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the salary of the petitioner. The said order dated 18.03.2005 is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. Though the petitioner had preferred RP No.6/2025 to review the award, the same was also dismissed for default. An application to restore the same with a delay of 2280 days is stated to be pending before the Tribunal.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. R.T. Pradeep, argues that Ext.P3 is illegal as notice was issued without hearing him, and that there is no provision to attach the salary of the defaulter as contemplated under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and the Rules. It is argued that Section 60 of the CPC will not apply as contemplated under Rule 394 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. It is argued that the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act does not contemplate attaching the salary of the defaulter, as the movable properties under Section 5 alone are defined as those capable of attachment and sale. Since Section 7 of the said Act mandates a prior notice, Ext.P3 is vitiated on that count as well. As the different tangible and intangible properties which could be attached are specifically mentioned and which do not include the salary, Ext.P3 is attacked as being without jurisdiction and beyond the powers granted under the Revenue Recovery Act.

6. A statement has been filed on behalf of the fourth respondent insurance company, contending that the petitioner has not invoked the statutory remedies available under the Revenue Recovery Act. It is also argued that under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 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. Reliance is also placed on Rule 394 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989, which deals with the enforcement of an award of the Claims Tribunal wherein all the powers of a Civil Court in execution of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure are granted as if it were a decree for payment of money passed by a Civil Court in a Civil Suit. It is also argued that Section 80 of the Revenue Recovery Act provides for the attachment of salaries and debts of defaulters. Thus, they contend that provisions of Order XXI Rule 48 of the CPC would apply, and the Ext.P3 order cannot be faulted. The learned counsel for the insurance company also relies on the judgment of this court in Premanandan v. State of Kerala , 20