Insurance companies must verify property ownership before initiating recovery proceedings, especially if appellants are not party to original claims.

Amit Rawal, J.

1. The recovery notices on the basis of the requisition sent by the insurance company – Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company to the District Collector and Deputy Tahsildar were challenged by the appellant – petitioner in W.P.(C)No.22715 of 2023 on various grounds and one of the ground was that by virtue of registered sale deed dated 10.10.2012 acquired the property from the seller – Omana for a valuable consideration.

2. In respect of an accident occurred on

06.06.2009, a motor vehicle claim petition was filed before the learned MACT in O.P.(MV)No.279 of 2010 by one Rosy against Sailesh, twenty years old and Shekharan, who are the son and husband of the appellant – petitioner, as the son, was at the date of the accident, found to be driving a motor cycle bearing registration No.HR-A6-8C-1332 owned by the father – respondent No.2 in the aforementioned O.P. In the aforementioned O.P., the son remained ex parte whereas the father and the insurance company contested the matter and denied the accident.

3. On the basis of the evidence brought on record, learned MACT vide order dated 28.04.2017 awarded a compensation of Rs.7,86,500/- with 9% interest jointly and severally liable to be recovered from respondent Nos.1 to 3 with a direction to the insurance company to first clear off the liability with a further liberty to recover the amount from respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is on that ground the insurance company sent a requisition and revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated.

4. Sri.M.K.Chandra Mohandas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the property which has been sought to be attached for the purpose of recovering the amount does not belong to the parties to the O.P.(MV). i.e., the son and husband, it is self acquired property. Though the insurance company has already satisfied the award, it could not have sent a requisition without clarifying the title of the property. Insurance company is at liberty to proceed against the properties, both immovable and movable, of the son and the husband, as the mother/wife cannot discharge the onus liability of the parties to the litigation. Learned Single judge had dismissed the writ petition by relegating the petitioner to approach under Section 34(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act . Once the question of jurisdiction of the authority is involved, writ petition was the appropriate remedy.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that on the basis of requisition of the insurance company, recovery proceedings have been initiated. There is no representation of the insurance company despite service.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

7. The title deed referred to above clearly establishes that the appellant – petitioner purchased it from the seller for a valuable consideration on 10.10.2012 whereas the accident had occurred on 06.06.2009 and the claim as mentioned above was filed against the son and her husband who were not the owners of the property as per the contents of the sale deed. Therefore, the appellant – petitioner was not party to the Motor Accident Claims whereby the claimant sought the compensation and has been awarded satisfied by the insurance company. The insurance company cannot at the drop of the hat initiate the recovery proceedings by making a requisition to the authorities concerned under the Revenue Recovery Act without verifying the title of the property. This is precisely what has been done. Al these factors if weighed in a correct perspective makes out a case of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by exercising the power of judicial review. Having noticed