Judgment :- The petitioner in an Original Petition on the file of he Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thirubvananthapuram is the petitioner in this Original Petition. He filed O.P.(MV) No.1566 of 1995 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident involving a motor vehicle. The O.P. was allowed and the petitioner was allowed to recover an amount of Rs.22,250/- from the Insurance Company. Since the Insurer did not pay the amount due under the award, the petitioner filed E.P.463 of 2002 for attachment and sale of movables belonging to the Insurance Company. The Presiding Officer. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal directed the petitioner to furnish the details of the movables which he seeks to attach. The petitioner was unable to furnish the details of those articles. So the execution petition was dismissed. That order is under challenge in this original petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal. It is submitted that in view of rule 394(1) and (2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. 1989, the Tribunal cannot dismiss an execution petition on the ground that the petitioner in the Original petition is not able to furnish the details of the movables kept in the office of the Insurance Company. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is illegal and there is failure on the part of the Presiding Officer to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. It is argued that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 394 (1) and (2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the Presiding Officer cannot dismiss an execution petition on the ground that the petitioner in the O.P. failed to furnish the details of the movables to be attached. Rule 394 (1) and (2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules reads as Follows: - "Enforcement of an award of the Claims Tribunal: - (1) without prejudice to its power under section 174 of the Act, the Claims Tribunal shall for the purpose of enforcement of its award, have all the powers of a Civil Court in the execution of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as if the award were a decree for payment of money passed by such Court in a Civil suit. (2) The Claims Tribunal may institute suo motue execution proceedings if the amount of compensation awarded is not paid before the expiry of the period for payment stipulated in the award and the case shall be called on a date to be fixed in the award for the purpose." 4. Rule 394 (2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules confers power on the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal to institute execution proceedings suo motu. The provisions contained in rule 394 (1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules is in addition to the mode of enforcement in the award as provided under Section 174 of the Act. In view of the provisions contained in section 174, an award passed by the Tribunal can be enforced invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. The provisions contained in Section 174 of the Act and Rule 394 (2) of the Rules were enacted with a specific purpose. The law making body wanted to make sure that the victims of the road traffic accident shall get the compensation determined without any unnecessary delay. The Tribunal shall not forget the social purpose sought to be achieved by making such provisions while executing the awards passed in cases claiming compensation. So every endeavour shall be made by the Tribunal to realise the amount due under the award in accordance with law. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that execution proceedings initiated suo motu by the Tribunal cannot be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner in the Original Petition failed to furnish the details of the movables to be attached. It is argued that dismissal of an execution petition on the ground that the victim/the legal heirs of a person died in a motor vehicle accident failed to supply the necessary details will make the provisions contained in section 394 (2) otiose. It is argued that a person who sustained serious injuries in an accident shall not be non-suited on the technical ground that he is unable to furnish the details of the table, chair, number of computers etc. Kept in the premises of the person liable to pay the amount under the award. It is argued that a person who sustained serious injuries in an accident shall not be non-suited on the technical ground that he is unable to furnish the details of the table, chair, number of computers etc. Kept in the premises of the person liable to pay the amount under the award. It is further argued that a statutory duty is cast on the Trinbunal to take effective steps to realise the amount due under the award and it is not legal or proper to insist that the petitioner shall file a petition for attachment of the movables. According to me, if it is shown that the petitioner is not able to furnish the necessary details, in appropriate cases the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal can call upon the person liable to pay the amount awarded to furnish the details of the movables. If the Company refuses to furnish the details, it is open to the Tribunal to pass appropriate orders such as deputing an officer of the Tribunal to take an inventory of he articles kept in the office of the Insurance Company at the expense of the applicant. In the aforesaid circumstances the dismissal of the execution petition is not correct. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the additional respondents has submitted that the original petition has become infructuous because the insurer had already deposited the entire amount due under the Award. But the amount was deposited only after receipt of the notice from this Court. Though the original petition has become infructuous, I think it is only just and proper to dismiss the execution petition on the ground that the petitioner was not able to furnish the details of the movables kept in the office of the Insurance Company. The original petition is disposed of as above.