1. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3, a notice issued by the revenue recovery authorities, pursuant to a requisition made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, for realising the amount in OP(MV) Nos. 624/2007 and 725/2007.

2. By an award dated 31.03.2016, the Tribunal allowed the claim petitions and permitted the insurance company to pay and recover. Thereafter, the insurance company deposited the amount ordered by the Tribunal, after which the insurer filed E.P.No.413 of 2016 seeking to recover the amount paid by him to satisfy the award.

3. Proceedings were initiated to recover an amount of Rs.18,20,687/- with 9% interest from 19.08.2016 on the principal amount of Rs. 10,11,000/- till the date of realisation. Ext.P2 is a copy of the Execution Application filed by the insurer, as stated above. Since there was no immovable property belonging to the petitioner, the second respondent issued Ext.P3 directing the third respondent to recover an amount of Rs. 24,57,616/- with interest at the rate of 9% from 29.05.2007 with 7% collection charges and notice charges and directing the recovery of an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the salary of the petitioner. The said order dated 18.03.2005 is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. Though the petitioner had preferred RP No.6/2025 to review the award, the same was also dismissed for default. An application to restore the same with a delay of 2280 days is stated to be pending before the Tribunal.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. R.T. Pradeep, argues that Ext.P3 is illegal as notice was issued without hearing him, and that there is no provision to attach the salary of the defaulter as contemplated under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and the Rules. It is argued that Section 60 of the CPC will not apply as contemplated under Rule 394 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. It is argued that the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act does not contemplate attaching the salary of the defaulter, as the movable properties under Section 5 alone are defined as those capable of attachment and sale. Since Section 7 of the said Act mandates a prior notice, Ext.P3 is vitiated on that count as well. As the different tangible and intangible properties which could be attached are specifically mentioned and which do not include the salary, Ext.P3 is attacked as being without jurisdiction and beyond the powers granted under the Revenue Recovery Act.

6. A statement has been filed on behalf of the fourth respondent insurance company, contending that the petitioner has not invoked the statutory remedies available under the Revenue Recovery Act. It is also argued that under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 where any amount is due from any person under an award, the Claims Tribunal may, on an application made to it by the person entitled to the amount, issue a certificate for the amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. Reliance is also placed on Rule 394 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989, which deals with the enforcement of an award of the Claims Tribunal wherein all the powers of a Civil Court in execution of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure are granted as if it were a decree for payment of money passed by a Civil Court in a Civil Suit. It is also argued that Section 80 of the Revenue Recovery Act provides for the attachment of salaries and debts of defaulters. Thus, they contend that provisions of Order XXI Rule 48 of the CPC would apply, and the Ext.P3 order cannot be faulted. The learned counsel for the insurance company also relies on the judgment of this court in Premanandan v. State of Kerala [2020 (3) KHC 719].

7. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, I am of the view that the challenge against Ext.P3 cannot be sustained. Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, empowers the Claims Tribunal, on application by the person entitled to the amount under an award, to issue a certificate to the Collector, whereupon the Collector shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. By virtue of this statutory deeming fiction, though the liability originates from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, once a certificate is issued, the amount assumes the character of public revenue due on land and becomes recoverable under the machinery provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.

8. When recovery is thus initiated, the judgment-debtor answers the description of a “defaulter” under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Section 80 of the said Act specifically provides that the salaries or allowances and debts due to a defaulter may be attached and realised for the recovery of any arrears of public revenue due on land, in the manner and to the extent provided for attachment and realisation of debts and salaries under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, the statutory scheme itself incorporates the limitations contained in the Code of Civil Procedure.

9. Section 60(1)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it clear that in execution of any decree other than a decree for maintenance, salary is attachable only to the extent of the first one thousand rupees and two-thirds of the remainder. In effect, the first Rs.1,000/- of the monthly salary is wholly exempt from attachment, and from the balance amount, only two-thirds can be attached, leaving one-third of such remainder protected. The proviso to the said clause further stipulates that where such attachable portion has been under attachment, whether continuously or intermittently, for a total period of twenty-four months, it shall thereafter be exempt from attachment for a further period of twelve months and, where the attachment is in execution of the same decree, upon completion of twenty-four months it shall become finally exempt in execution of that decree.

10. The procedural mechanism for such attachment is provided under Order XXI Rule 48 CPC, which authorises the Court to direct the disbursing officer to withhold from the salary, subject to Section 60, either in one payment or by monthly instalments, and remit the same towards satisfaction of the decree. Thus, the attachment of salary is not prohibited; rather, it is expressly contemplated, subject to statutory ceilings and safeguards.

11. This position has been recognised by this Court in Premanandan v. State of Kerala [2020 (3) KHC 719], wherein it was held that recovery from salary under Section 80 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act is legally permissible subject to the limitations under Section 60 CPC. In Babu D’Cruz v. Kerala State Financial Enter𝕛rises Ltd. [2012 Supreme (Online) (Ker) 7844], this Court specifically considered a grievance regarding excessive deduction from salary in revenue recovery proceedings and recorded that the deduction must be confined to the permissible extent under Section 60 CPC read with Section 80 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Further, in K. Gangadharan v. Manager, South Malabar Gramin Bank [2010 Supreme (Online) (Ker) 34607], this Court declined to interdict simultaneous recovery proceedings, but clarified in unequivocal terms that recovery from salary can be effected only to the extent of the limitations stipulated under Section 80 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.

12. In the light of the above statutory provisions and binding precedents, the contention that salary cannot be attached in proceedings initiated under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, is untenable. Ext.P3 cannot therefore be characterised as without jurisdiction or contrary to law.

13. That apart, it is to be noted that in the present case, the driver did not possess a valid driving licence and there was no contest before the Tribunal. The review petition was dismissed for default, and the restoration application was filed with a delay of 2280 days. In the absence of any order setting aside the award or staying the recovery proceedings, this Court finds no ground to exercise  discretionary  jurisdiction  under  Article  226  of  the Constitution of India.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exts.P4 to P7 applications for restoration are pending before the Tribunal. If so, the Tribunal shall consider and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law.

                  The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.