Bhatinda Chemicals Ltd. vs The Addl. Dist. Judge and Others

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—The award was passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") against the petitioner and others. The petitioner filed an appeal over the said award but has not been able to obtain stay. The claimants are getting the award executed and in pursuance of the same recovery certificate u/s 3(1) of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 has been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the recovery which is being made against him.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we find that this petition is without merit. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the recovery is not being made in accordance with law. According to him If the property from which the recovery is to be made is in a district other than that in which the arrears accrued or sum is payable, the Collector has to send a certificate to Collector of that other district for recovery and according to learned Counsel for the petitioner this procedure is not followed and, therefore, recovery proceedings against him are not legal.

This does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner who has not honoured and award of the Tribunal in which unfortunate widow and minor children of the deceased have not received compensation. The date of the award is 11-9-1993 and till date, the petitioner has not cared to honour the award. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he has filed an appeal against the said award but has admitted that he has not been able to obtain stay. This being the position, poor claimants cannot be made to suffer only because of some technical ground regarding procedure according to counsel for the petitioner, is faulty. Extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked by defaulter so as to deprive needy and poor claimants from the compensation to which they are entitled to.

Dismissed.