Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1256 (PNJ)

Kamlesh v. Sita Devi

2009-07-29

AJAY K.MITTAL

body2009
Judgment Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The petitioner, who is owner of the offending vehicle, has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India pugning the order dated 07.10.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal") whereby in execution of the award dated 08.10.2004 warrant of arrest had been issued against her being judgment-debtor No. 2. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that claimant respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of the death of Data Ram in a road accident which took place on 07.07.2003. The Tribunal in a claim petition having been filed by the dependents of said Data Ram, vide award dated 08.10.2004 awarded a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- in favour of the claimant respondents along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realization. The petitioner along with driver of the vehicle respondent No. 5 was held liable to pay the said amount of compensation. Against the aforesaid award, the petitioner had filed F.A.O. No. 1768 of 2005 in this Court for absolving her of her liability under the award dated 08.10.2004 whereas the claimants have filed an appeal for enhancement of compensation. The execution was filed by the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as the judgment debtorowner/petitioner has not deposited the amount as awarded by the Tribunal though there was no stay in the appeal regarding execution of the award passed by the Tribunal. In the execution, on an application filed by the claimants for issuance of warrant of arrest under Order 21 Rule 11-A and Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (here-in-after referred to as "the Code") against the judgment debtor-owner/petitioner, the executing court issued the warrant of arrest vide the impugned order. In the execution, on an application filed by the claimants for issuance of warrant of arrest under Order 21 Rule 11-A and Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (here-in-after referred to as "the Code") against the judgment debtor-owner/petitioner, the executing court issued the warrant of arrest vide the impugned order. It was against the said order passed on the execution application that has given cause of action to the petitioner to approach this Court as the Tribunal had ordered that initially the petitioner be put in civil prison for a period of one month, unless the amount of award with interest and cost is paid earlier, in which case she would be released forthwith. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Section 56 of the Code as well as Section 69 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (in short "the Act") to contend that there is a clearcut bar in the aforesaid provision for issuance of process of arrest and detention of a women in execution of a decree for payment of money. 4. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondent, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record and find force in the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. It is advantageous to refer Section 56 of the Code which reads thus :- "56. Prohibition of arrest or detention of women in execution of decree for money. - Notwithstanding anything in this Part, the Court shall not order the arrest or detention in the civil prison of a woman in execution of a decree for the payment of money." A plain reading of the aforesaid provision clearly provides that a woman shall not be arrested or detained in the civil prison in execution of a decree for the payment of money. Section 69 of the Act reads as under :- "69. Arrest and detention of defaulter. - (1) At any time after an arrear of land revenue has accrued a Revenue Officer may issue a warrant directing an officer named therein to arrest the defaulter and bring him before the Revenue Officer. Section 69 of the Act reads as under :- "69. Arrest and detention of defaulter. - (1) At any time after an arrear of land revenue has accrued a Revenue Officer may issue a warrant directing an officer named therein to arrest the defaulter and bring him before the Revenue Officer. (2) xx xx xx (3) xx xx xx (4) The process of arrest and detention shall not be executed against defaulter who is a female, a minor, a lunatic or idiot." According to sub-section (1) of Section 69 of the Act, where any arrear of land revenue has accrued, the defaulter can be arrested and brought before the Revenue Officer. Sub-section (4) provides that where the defaulter is a female, a minor, a lunatic or idiot, the process of arrest and detention shall not be executed against such person. Accordingly, the Tribunal could not have ordered for arrest and detention of judgment debtor No. 2-petitioner who is a lady on an application filed by the claimants under Order 21 Rule 11A and Rule 37 of the Code. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 07.10.2006 (Annexure P-3) impugned herein passed by the Tribunal cannot be legally sustained and the same is hereby set aside. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.