Where Award Grants Recovery, Insurer Can Seek Section 174 Certificate Against Motorcycle Owner: Gauhati HC

Pinky Das @ Priti Das brought a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident.

The petitioner was impleaded as the motorcycle’s owner; the claim proceeding went ex parte against him and the rider.

On 30 August 2016, the Tribunal awarded the claimant ₹83,000 with interest and directed the insurer to satisfy the award, with liberty to recover the amount from the petitioner.

The insurer subsequently initiated Misc. Case No. 13/2017 to enforce that recovery direction.

The petitioner challenged the proceeding, contending that the Tribunal had become functus officio after disposing of the claim and asserting that he had not been served in the original proceeding.

He had neither sought recall of the ex parte award nor appealed it.

Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers a Claims Tribunal, on application by a person entitled to an amount due under an award, to issue a recovery certificate to the Collector; the Collector then recovers the amount as an arrear of land revenue.

Where an award expressly grants an insurer a right to recover from the insured owner after satisfying the claimant’s award, the insurer is a person entitled to the recoverable amount for purposes of Section 174 and need not bring a separate suit.

A recovery-certificate proceeding enforces the existing award rather than reopening its merits.

The owner must, however, receive notice and an opportunity to be heard on payment, computation, and the recoverable amount under the applicable recovery procedure, including the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, as applicable in Assam.

The Tribunal had already determined the insurer’s and insured’s respective liabilities in the original award, including the insurer’s right to recover from the petitioner.

The insurer’s application sought only enforcement of that adjudicated direction through the statutory mechanism in Section 174, not a fresh determination of the original claim; accordingly, the Tribunal was not functus officio for that limited purpose.

The petitioner’s non-service contention could not invalidate the recovery proceeding because he had not pursued available remedies to challenge or recall the award.

His opportunity in the recovery proceeding is confined to notice and hearing concerning payment, computation, and the amount recoverable; the merits of the concluded award cannot be reopened.

It dismissed the writ petition and directed the Tribunal to proceed in accordance with law and the statutory scheme, subject to the limits set out in the judgment.

Any interim order was vacated.