Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1290 (HP)

Panna Lal v. Jai Pal Saklani

2015-09-16

P.S.RANA

body2015
Order P.S. Rana 1. Present civil revision is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure against order dated 20.6.2013 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I Mandi in Execution Petition No. 11 of 2010. Brief facts of the case 2. Anil Kumar deceased filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Award was passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Mandi District Mandi H.P. and award to the tune of ` 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) along with 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realisation was granted in favour of Anil Kumar. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Mandi directed United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager Mandi to deposit the award amount after adjustment of interim compensation amount if any. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal further directed that United India Insurance Company Ltd. would recover the award amount from owner and driver. Thereafter Panna Lal father of Anil Kumar filed execution petition No. 11 of 2010 under Section 174 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 pleaded therein that Anil Kumar had died and he is entitled for award amount of his deceased son. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Mandi dismissed the execution petition on 20.6.2013 with observations that award was passed against a dead person by the Tribunal. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that award so passed in favour of dead person is nullity and same could not be executed. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal revisionist filed the present civil revision. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists and Court also perused entire record carefuly. 5. Following points arise for determination in present civil revision petition:- 1. Whether civil revision petition is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition? 2. Final order. Reasons for findings on Point No.1. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that deceased award holder Anil Kumar had died on 3.7.2009 after conclusion of hearing and before pronouncement of award and revisionist is entitled for protection of provision of Order 22 Rule 6 CPC is decided accordingly for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. 2. Final order. Reasons for findings on Point No.1. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that deceased award holder Anil Kumar had died on 3.7.2009 after conclusion of hearing and before pronouncement of award and revisionist is entitled for protection of provision of Order 22 Rule 6 CPC is decided accordingly for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that Order 22 Rule 6 CPC 1908 is exception to another principle of law that Court has no jurisdiction to pass the decree against a dead person. Order 22 Rule 6 CPC 1908 is quoted in toto. Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing rules whether the cause of action survives or not there shall be no abatement by reason of the death of either party between conclusion of the hearing and pronouncement of the judgment and judgment may in such case be pronounced notwithstanding the death and shall have the same force and effect as it had been pronounced before the death took place. It is held that death of award holder will not effect the execution proceedings if death of award holder namely Anil Kumar took place after conclusion of hearing of the case and before pronouncement of judgment. (See AIR 2005 Rajasthan 90 titled Johoor Ahmed (D) by LRs. vs. Laloo (D) by LR. Also see AIR 1996 SC 116 titled N.P. Thirugnanam (D) by LRs. vs. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao and others.) 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists that execution petition is not maintainable because Anil Kumar award holder had died prior to pronouncement of award on 3.7.2009 is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that award would be executed in accordance with law if Anil Kumar had died between final conclusion of hearing and pronouncement of award because as per provisions of Order 22 Rule 6 CPC there is no abatement by reason of death between conclusion of hearing of case and pronoucement of award. Point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Final Order (Point No.2) 8. Point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Final Order (Point No.2) 8. In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra it is held that if Anil Kumar deceased award holder had died between conclusion of hearing and pronoucement of award then award will be executed as per Section 174 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 by way of issuance of certificate to Collector to recover the award amount as arrears of land revenue. It is further held that if Anil Kumar deceased had died before conclusion of final hearing then award would not be executed. Order passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Mandi on 20.6.2013 in execution petition No. 11 of 2013 is modified accordingly. File of Executing Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith. No order as to costs. Parties are directed to appear before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-1 Mandi on 16.10.2015. Civil Revision is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, also stands disposed of.