JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 16.6.2012 made in in unnumbered EP.SR.No.2388/ 2012 in MCOP.No.161/2010 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (MACT) Tirunelveli, returning the application. 2. The 1st Respondent herein/claimant suffered injuries in the accident that had occurred on 1.3.2010 at about 21.30 hours in the Tirunelveli-Tiruchendur Main Road, in which the vehicle Honda Motor Cycle belonging to the 2nd Respondent herein was involved, which was insured with Petitioner Insurance Company. The 3rd Respondent herein is the driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.1,06,550/-as total compensation with interest at 7.5 percent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal directed the Petitioner Insurance Company to pay the amount and recover the same from the 1st Respondent by initiating execution proceedings directly. Accordingly, the Petitioner Insurance Company had deposited a total sum of Rs.1,21,534/-in full satisfaction of the award. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to realise the amount with subsequent interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent p.a. by initiating execution proceedings. Accordingly, the Petitioner has filed an execution petition before the Tribunal and prayed for issuance of certificate under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the amounts of Rs.1,29,543/- to the District Collector, Tirunelveli so as to recover the amounts as arrears of land revenue. 3. Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:- "Recovery of money from insurer as arrears of land revenue:-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 arrears of land revenue." 4. Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act says that if any amount is due from any person under an award, the 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 in turn shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrears of land revenue. From the simple reading of the language of Section 174 of the Act, it is apparently clear that it confers a right upon the person (named under the award by the Tribunal) to recover the amount in terms of the award from a person against whom such an order has been made. The word 'any person' so used in the section would include the owner of the vehicle provided in the award a direction against the owner has been made. Similarly, the words 'the person entitled' would include the Insurance Company provided that a direction in its favour has been made in the award. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner drew the attention of this court to the decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in 2009-3-TAC-645-All (Surinder Kaur Vs. MACT/Special Judge, A.C.Act, Bareilly and another) wherein the said position has been made clear after referring to the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2004-4-SCC-766:AIR-2004-SC-3625 (Raichurmatham Prabhakar Rawatmal Dugar) and AIR-1990-SC-689 (Frick India Limited Vs. Union of India). 6. The Tribunal has returned the application stating that the Insurance Company is permitted to recover the award amount with interest and costs from the 1st Respondent by initiating execution proceedings directly and therefore, this petition seeking for issuance of certificate under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable. It is clear from Section 174 of the Act that a right is conferred upon any person including the Insurance Company who is entitled to the amount for getting a certificate under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act provided that a direction in its favour has been made in the award. The same view is reiterated in the decision reported in 2009-3-TAC-645-All (Surinder Kaur Vs. MACT/Special Judge, A.C.Act, Bareilly and another). Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in returning the application on the ground that it can recover the amount only by initiating execution proceedings against the owner. The Petitioner Insurance Company is entitled to get certificate under Section 174 of the Act and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.6.2012 is set aside. The Petitioner Insurance Company is entitled to get certificate under Section 174 of the Act and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.6.2012 is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to number the application if it is otherwise in order and dispose of the same in the light of the observations made above, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.