JUDGMENT

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

1. I have heard Sri M.A. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and perused the record.

2. As per office report dated 5.12.2019 the petitioners have not taken steps to serve the respondent No. 2, The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 29.8.2006. The writ petition is listed for admission.

3. I proceed to consider the admission of the writ petition.

4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the offending vehicle/bus bearing registration No. PB-13E-9775 which she had purchased from petitioner No. 2, on 6.5.2002, causing the accident dated 16.5.2002 resulting into death of one Sri Mahipal Singh. The legal heirs of late Mahipal Singh filed Motor Accident Claim No. 857 of 2002 (Smt. Savitri Devi and others v. Sudha Singh and others) for grant of compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

5. After contest the claim was allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut (Special Judge/Anti Corruption) vide judgment and award dated 5.11.2004 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- against opposite party No. 2 and 3 in the claim petition (present petitioners) jointly and severally with interest @ 6% and cost, with further direction that the compensation amount shall be indemnified by the New India Insurance Company Ltd./respondent No. 2 (in short the "Insurance Company') and it will be open to the Insurance Company to recover the said amount either from the insured (petitioner No. 2) or from the transferee of the vehicle.

6. It appears from the record that the Insurance Company deposited an amount of Rs. 2,15,455.00/- before the claims Tribunal on 21.12.2004 and thereafter filed an application for recovery of that amount from the petitioners in terms of the award dated 5.11.2004 which application, registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 2005 (New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sudha Singh and another) was allowed by the Claims Tribunal by order dated 20.1.2006. There after a recovery certificate dated 22.2.2006 under section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was sent to the Collector/District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar to recover the amount from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue and to pay the same to the Insurance Company. In pursuance of the recovery certificate dated 22.2.2006 the District Magistrate, Muazaffar Nagar on 17.3.2006 directed for necessary action being taken as per law.

7. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the award dated 5.11.2004 and the order dated 22.2.2006 (Annexure Nos. 2 and 3 respectively) as well as for a direction to the Claims Tribunal not to proceed further in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2005, making following prayers:

"(1) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgment and award dated 5.11.2004 and order dated 22.2.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-1 Meerut Special Judge Anti Corruption Act as contained in Annexure Nos. 2 and 3 respectively to the writ petition.

(2) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal not to proceed further in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2005"

(3) issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(4) award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners."

8. The learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners have equally efficacious alternative remedy to challenge the award dated 5.11.2004 under section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by filing appeal and in view thereof the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as the awarded amount has been deposited by the Insurance Company, the remedy of appeal is not available under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the