Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 134 (RAJ)

M. M. Enterprises v. Tulsi Devi

2012-01-11

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN II

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner-owner of the vehicle, has challenged the order dated 26.7.2001 passed on an application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C. in Civil Misc. Case No. 73/2001 (Original MACT Case No. 391/1996), whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (for short 'the Tribunal' hereinafter) rejected the prayer of the petitioner to withdraw the recovery warrant from Tehsildar. 2. As per facts of the case, Claim Case No. 391/1996 filed by respondent No. 1 - Smt. Tulsi Devi wife of Rama Gameti, resident of Sabalpur, Tehsil Girva, District Udaipur was decided by the Tribunal on 19.2.2001. The petitioner - M/s M.M. Enterprises filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. praying therein for setting aside the MACT Claim passed against it on 19.2.2001. It is stated in the claim that husband of Smt. Tuilsi Devi, Shri Rama Gameti while travelling in jeep, died due to an accident. The petitioner is the owner of the jeep, who did not appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has passed the award of Rs. 93,800/-against the petitioner only. The Insurance Company was not held responsible. After passing of the award, claimants filed an application under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Tribunal for recovery of amount of award. Upon that execution petition, warrant of recovery was issued by the Tehsildar and the petitioner wanted to withdraw the recovery warrant issued by the Tehsildar. The application was dismissed by the Tribunal by the order impugned. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsels appearing for the non-petitioners and considered the averments made in the writ petition and scanned through the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not aware about the latest facts of the case. He has admitted that the petitioner has not deposited the amount as ordered by this Court on 15.9.2001. There is no ad interim stay order. He has submitted that order of the Tribunal dated 26.7.2001 is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. He has admitted that the petitioner has not deposited the amount as ordered by this Court on 15.9.2001. There is no ad interim stay order. He has submitted that order of the Tribunal dated 26.7.2001 is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Shri Kailash Trivedi, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed on an application under Section 151 C.P.C. by the Tribunal. It is clear from the impugned order that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was not decided by the Tribunal but the petitioner has not disclosed this fact before the Tribunal. The application under Section 151 C.P.C. was decided by the impugned order only and this writ petition has become infructuous. The order of the Tribunal is not illegal or without jurisdiction, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company Shri R.K. Singhal submitted that the Insurance Company was not held responsible by the Tribunal and in the impugned order, the Insurance Company was not party but unnecessarily in writ , petition, the Insurance Company has been impleaded as party, therefore, the writ petition so far Insurance Company is concerned, may be dismissed the cost. 7. It is clear that ex parte award has been passed against the petitioner M/s M.M. Enterprises by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.2.2001 against with an application under Order 9 Rule 13 was filed, which is pending before the Tribunal. In that application, the petitioner filed an application that Tehsildar has issued the recovery warrant against the petitioner, so during the pendency of that application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., the recovery warrant should not be executed. That application has been rejected by the impugned order by the Tribunal. It is clear that the incident occurred long back. It is admitted position that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is pending before the Tribunal. So upon circumspection of above facts on record, it is clear that the Tribunal has rejected the application of the petitioner. That application has been rejected by the impugned order by the Tribunal. It is clear that the incident occurred long back. It is admitted position that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is pending before the Tribunal. So upon circumspection of above facts on record, it is clear that the Tribunal has rejected the application of the petitioner. From perusal of the order impugned dated 26.7.2001, which has been passed -by the Tribunal with elaborate consideration of the application filed by the petitioner as well as award passed by the Tribunal, I find no illegality requiring any interference by this Court. 8. Hence I find no force in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******