Rabi Shankar Boro vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And 3 Ors.

Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010053282019

2026:GAU-AS:16001
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1854/2019
RABI SHANKAR BORO
S/O- LT PHUKAN CHANDRA BORO, R/O- PASCHIM BORAGAON,
MIKIRGHULI, UNDER GARCHUK P.S. DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND 3 ORS.
G.S.ROAD, ULUBARI, GHY, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
2:THE MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.2
KAMRUP (M)
GHY
3:SHRI LAXMAN DAS
S/O- ANUP LAL DAS
DWARKA NAGAR
GOSHALA
MALIGAON
GHY-12
4:PINKY DAS @ PRITI DAS
W/O- SRI SANJAY DAS
ADABARI COLONY
P.O. PANDU
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
GHY
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D K DAS, MS D HAZARIKA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR SISHIR DUTTA, MR. S DUTTA,MR D CHAKRABORTY (R3)

Page No.# 2/7

- B E F O R E -

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY


For the petitioner : Mr. D.K.Das, Sr. counsel
Ms. M.Boro, counsel


For the respondent s : Mr. S. Dutta, Sr. counsel
Mr. S. Dutta, counsel




Date on which judgment was reserved :


Date of pronouncement of judgment : 02.11.2026

Whether the pronouncement is of the
operative part of the judgment? : No

Whether the judgment has been pronounced? : Yes

Page No.# 3/7

J UDGMENT & O RDER (O RAL )
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

ORDER

02-11-2026
1. Heard Mr. D. K. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Boro, learned
counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior counsel assisted by
Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the proceeding registered as
Misc. Case No. 13/2017 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup
(M), Guwahati at the instance of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as “the Insurance Company”) seeking recovery of the amount paid by it in
satisfaction of the award passed in MAC Case No. 335/2013.
3. The aforesaid claim proceeding was instituted by Smt. Pinky Das @ Priti Das,
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the MV
Act”), claiming compensation for injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident
dated 15.01.2013. The rider of the offending motorcycle was arrayed as opposite
party No. 2, whereas the present petitioner was impleaded as opposite party No. 3 in
his capacity as the owner of the vehicle. The proceeding proceeded Ex-parte against
both.
4. The Insurance Company with which the motorcycle bearing registration No.
AS-01-AL-9281 was insured, contested the claim petition, inter alia, on the ground that
the rider did not possess a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the
accident. In support of its defence, the Insurance Company adduced evidence through

Page No.# 4/7
DW-1.
5. By the judgment and order dated 30.08.2016, the Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs. 83,000 /-with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimant,
directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award with liberty to recover the
amount from the present petitioner, being the owner of the offending vehicle.
6. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was
not served with notice in the original claim proceeding and consequently was deprived
of an opportunity to contest the same.
7. However, on a specific query from the Court, the learned Senior counsel for
the petitioner fairly submits that neither has any application seeking recall of the Ex-
parte award been filed nor has the award been assailed in appeal.
8. The Insurance Company thereafter initiated the proceeding, registered as
Misc. Case No. 13/2017, before the Tribunal, seeking enforcement of the recovery
direction contained in the award.
9. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that, upon
disposal of the MAC Case No. 335/2013 by the judgment and order dated 30.08.2016,
the Tribunal became functus officio and therefore, lacked jurisdiction to entertain any
subsequent proceeding at the instance of the Insurance Company for recovery of the
amount.
10. The aforesaid contention proceeds on an erroneous understanding of the
statutory scheme governing the recovery of amount awarded by a Claims Tribunal
under the MV Act.
11. Section 174 of the MV Act provides that where any amount is due from any
person under an award, the Claims Tribunal may, on application made to it by the
person entitled to the amount, issue a certificate for the amount to the Collector, who

Page No.# 5/7
shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.
12. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it evident that the Tribunal is
statutorily empowered to issue a recovery certificate to the Collector for enforcement
of an amount found due under its award. The provision does not contemplate that the
Tribunal itself shall undertake the process of recovery. The actual recovery is to be
undertaken by the Collector through the machinery prescribed for the recovery of
arrears of land revenue, which in the State of Assam includes the procedure under the
Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as the Recovery
Act), as applicable to the State and competent Pakijai authorities.
13. The expression "any person entitled to the amount" occurring in Section 174 of
the MV Act cannot be construed to exclude an insurer in whose favour the Tribunal
has expressly adjudicated and granted a right of recovery against the insured owner.
Once the Tribunal, upon adjudication of defence available to the insurer, directs the
insurer to satisfy the award in the first instance with liberty to recover the amount
from the insured, the amount so recoverable constitutes an amount due under the
award within the meaning of Section 174 of the MV Act.
14. It is by now well-settled that an insurer in whose favour a right of recovery has
been recognized is not required to institute a separate Suit and may initiate
appropriate proceeding for recovery before the competent forum. The underlying
principle is that the insurer's right of recovery, once recognized in the adjudication
under the MV Act, is enforceable without requiring a fresh adjudication of the same
dispute in an independent Civil Suit.
15. Thus, the Tribunal, having already adjudicated the respective rights and
liabilities of the insurer and the insured in the original claim proceeding, does not
become functus officio for the limited purpose of entertaining an application seeking
the issuance of a recovery certificate under Section 174 of the MV Act. Such an

Page No.# 6/7
application does not reopen the adjudication concluded by the award, nor does it
amount to a fresh adjudication of the original claim. It is only a statutory step towards
the enforcement of the recovery direction already incorporated in the award.
16. The grievance of the petitioner regarding non-issuance of notice in the original
claim proceeding, in the absence of any challenge to the award by resorting to the
remedies available in law, cannot be converted into a ground to invalidate the
subsequent statutory proceeding for issuance of a recovery certificate. The recovery
proceeding, however, must remain confined to the enforcement of the recovery
direction contained in the award.
17. The petitioner, under the mandate of the Recovery Act, is required to be
afforded an opportunity of notice and hearing concerning the payment, computation,
and recoverable amount. The merits of the concluded award cannot be reopened in
such proceeding.
18. In view of the above, this Court finds no jurisdictional infirmity in the Tribunal
entertaining Misc. Case No. 13/2017 for the purpose of considering the application of
the insurance company for issuance of a recovery certificate under Section 174 of the
MV Act.
19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
20. The Tribunal shall proceed with the application in accordance with law, keeping
in view the statutory scheme under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and
the determination made hereinabove.
21. The interim order, passed earlier, if any, stands vacated.
JUDGE

Page No.# 7/7
Comparing Assistant