Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Others - WRIT - C No. 50994 of 2002 [2007] RD-AH 9347 (16 May 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).




On the basis of judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal as the amount was not paid, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal sent a recovery certificate on 4.12.2001 to the respondent No.2 i.e. Collector Etawah U.P. for recovery of the amount of Rs.10,78,106.27.

It has been submitted by Sri Kuldip Shanker Amist, learned counsel for the petitioner that immediately when the petitioner came to know regarding the recovery certificate he deposited the total outstanding amount before the Claims Tribunal on 3.1.2002 and an intimation to that effect has been given by the Claims Tribunal to the District Authorities.  

In view of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner submits that no recovery charges can be charged from the petitioner.

On the other hand, Sri Vishnu Pratap, learned Standing Counsel has  submitted that when the district administration was authorized to recover the amount and  in spite of the best efforts the recovery could not be made then the account of the  National Insurance Co. Ltd was attached.  It was after the attachment, the intimation was given by the Claims Tribunal that amount has been deposited  before the Claims Tribunal.  As the respondents  have already taken steps and seized the account, therefore, it amounts to that due to the seizure of the account of the Insurance Company, the money was paid.  In such situation, the learned Standing Counsel submits that they have rightly realized 10% amount as recovery charges.  It has further been submitted that 10% of the recovery charges has already been withdrawn by the State from the account of the National Insurance Company Ltd. prior to the date of intimation.

Now the question for consideration is that whether the petitioner is entitled for the refund of 10%  recovery charges which has already been realized by the  respondents.  In our opinion, as the steps were taken by the State authorities after receipt of the recovery certificate and the account of the Insurance Company was seized, in such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the respondents have rightly realized 10% of the recovery charges.  In such situation, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for refund of the amount which has already been taken by the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties.  

In view of the aforesaid fact, we find no merit in the writ petition.  The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, is vacated.  

No order as to costs.



W.P.No.50994 of 2002


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.