Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 317 (HP)

HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. DEVI SINGH

2002-11-27

KAMLESH SHARMA

body2002
JUDGMENT Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, J.—The petition under Section 115 CPC read with Section 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 26.4.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla whereby movable property of petitioner-judgment debtor-Corporation has been ordered to be attached. By another impugned order dated 26.6.2001 the execution petition of respondents-decree holders was dismissed as partly satisfied on receipt of the report of the Ahlmad and Nazir that an amount of Rs. 34,010 for which the execution petition was filed stood deposited. In view of this position the objections filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC were dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that these were filed at a belated stage. While passing this order it weighed with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that the service was effected on the Managing Director of the petitioner-judgment debtor-Corporation on 8.11.2000 but neither objections were filed nor money was deposited despite adjournments granted for the purpose on 2.12.2000,12.1.2001, 23.3.2001 and 17.4.2001. 2. It appears that the respondents-decree holders had filed execution petition for the amount of Rs. 34,010 up to 11.10.2000 being interest on the award amount. It was admitted that the award amount of Rs. 89,500 stood deposited and thereafter released to them. It is correct that when despite number of opportunities the petitioner-judgment debtor-Corporation had failed either to deposit the amount or to file objections, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was constrained to pass the order dated 26.4.2001 to attach the movable property of the petitioner-judgment debtor to realize the balance award amount demanded in the execution petition. 3. The point for consideration as raised in this petition is whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has the jurisdiction to proceed in the execution petition as per the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure and pass the order of attachment of the movable property of the petitioner-judgment debtor or there is special procedure prescribed under the Motor Vehicle Act for recovery of money under the award? 4. The Motor Vehicle Act is a special Act and under Section 174 of this Act procedure for recovery of money from any person under an award has been prescribed, though heading of this section denotes that it is for recovery of money from insurer, as arrear of land revenue. 4. The Motor Vehicle Act is a special Act and under Section 174 of this Act procedure for recovery of money from any person under an award has been prescribed, though heading of this section denotes that it is for recovery of money from insurer, as arrear of land revenue. This section is: "Recovery of money from insurer as arrear 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 then Collector shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue." 5. As per this section, on an application made to the Tribunal by the person entitled to the amount due to him under an award from any person, may be from the owner of the vehicle or from the insurer, the Tribunal will issue a certificate for the amount to the Collector who will recover such amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. Section 169 which provides for procedure and powers of Claims Tribunal for holding enquiry under Section 168 of the Act does not cover the procedure for execution of an award. Reference to the Rules made by the State Government under Section 176 of the Act is not relevant in view of Section 175. Therefore, in view of special procedure prescribed for recovery of money under an award the general procedure prescribed under Civil Procedure Code for the purpose of execution is not applicable. 6. In the result, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order dated 26.4.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the movable property of the petitioner-judgment debtor-Corporation is ordered to be attached is without jurisdiction and it is set aside, as a consequence of which the subsequent order dated 26.6.2001 does not survive and it is also set aside. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla is directed to restore the execution petition to its original number and thereafter dispose it of in accordance with law after deciding the objections filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor-Corporation and after determining the amount due and payable to the respondents-decree holders under the award dated 5.10.1998 passed in M.A.C.T. Case No. 67-S/2 of 1997 titled Devi Singh and another v. H.R.T.C, after making adjustment of the amounts already paid to them by the petitioner-judgment debtor-Corporation. Since the petitioner-judgment debtor-corporation has already deposited an amount of Rs. 34,010 as per the demand of the respondent-decree holders the amount found due and payable will be paid to the respondents-decree holders out of this amount and the balance amount, if any, will be refunded to the petitioner-judgment debtor-Corporation. The revision petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back immediately. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor is directed to appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla on 23.12.2002. Revision petition disposed of.