JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The issue which falls for consideration is as to whether in an execution case being Revocation Case No. 27 of 2018, the Executing Court can decide whether there was any violation of the conditions of the policy or not in respect of accident claim case under Motor Vehicle Act, when the same has not been held or adjudicated by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal. 3. Mr. Saibal Mitra, learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle, submits that the vehicle was involved in an accident due to which, Motor Accident Claim Case No. 75/2014 was filed by the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The said case was ultimately disposed of by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro computing the amount of compensation. In the award it was held that if there is any violation of the conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the same. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid observation, the Insurance Company has filed an Execution Case (nomenclature mentioned as Revocation Case) and in that execution case, the Executing Court is again re-opening the issue as to whether there is any violation of the condition of the policy, which according to the petitioner is not permissible. 5. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that in an execution case, the court has to give effect to the judgment/award and it can hold an enquiry. As per him, since there is specific order in the award giving liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle, if there is any violation of the conditions of the policy, thus the Insurance Company was well within the right to file the execution case and in the said case the Court is duty bound to give a finding on the point of violation of the condition of policy. 6. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Case being MACT Case No. 75 of 2014 was filed by Ramnarayan Sahani and Others claiming compensation. The petitioner, herein, is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. JH 10AH 4425. It is an admitted case that the aforesaid vehicle was involved in the accident. 6. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Case being MACT Case No. 75 of 2014 was filed by Ramnarayan Sahani and Others claiming compensation. The petitioner, herein, is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. JH 10AH 4425. It is an admitted case that the aforesaid vehicle was involved in the accident. It is also admitted that the Truck was also insured with Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Limited (the opposite party in this case). The Tribunal framed seven issues, out of which, Issue No. (4) is relevant for the purpose of this case, which reads as follows: “4. Whether the driver of offending vehicle was having valid driving licence at the relevant time of accident?” 7. Thus, issue No. 4 was decided by the Tribunal at internal page 6 and 7 of the Award holding that the truck driver had valid driving licence. Whatever be the reason of arriving at the conclusion, the same is not under challenge. The fact remains that there is finding by the Tribunal on issue No. 4 to the extent that the driver of the truck had valid driving licence. No other issue was framed in relation to violation of the condition of policy. There is no material or finding to suggest that there was any violation of the conditions of the insurance policy. 8. The issue as to whether there is violation of condition of the policy has to be dealt with by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal. The jurisdiction only lies with the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal to decide as to whether there is any violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The said issue cannot be relegated to any other Authority/Court. 9. Further, if the issue has been decided by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal that there was violation of the condition of the policy, then only the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal can give liberty or direct the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle. Without arriving to a clear finding on whether there is any violation of condition of policy, Tribunal cannot in “ifs and buts” direct or give liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amount. To extend such liberty to recover, it is mandatory for the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal to arrive at a positive finding that there was violation of the policy. 10. To extend such liberty to recover, it is mandatory for the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal to arrive at a positive finding that there was violation of the policy. 10. In this case, admittedly, there is a positive finding that there was valid driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. There is no finding that there is any violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In the last paragraph of the impugned award, the Tribunal has just held that “if there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company will be at liberty to recover the amount.” Based only on this observation and in absence of any definite finding, the Insurance Company has approached the Executing Court in Revocation Case No. 27/2018 to recover the amount awarded. 11. The Court who is in seisin of execution case has to strictly follow the judgment /award which is sought to be executed. The said Executing Court does not have any jurisdiction to go beyond the judgment/award, which is sought to be executed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Misra vs. Mohd. Laiquddin Khan, (2019) 10 SCC 329 and also in the case of S. Bhaskaran vs. Sebastian, (2019) 9 SCC 161 had held that the executing court cannot travel beyond the decree. No new issue, which is directly relatable to the original suit/claim case, can be opened by the Executing Court to decide, if the said issue is not answered by the Tribunal or the Court, who has passed the decree. 12. In the instant case, if the Executing Court is allowed to continue, and he has to come to an independent finding as to whether there is any violation of the conditions of the policy. This finding will be beyond the jurisdiction of the Executing Court, as this jurisdiction is exclusively and solely vested with the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, when it was dealing with an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Allowing the Executing Court, will amount to give a liberty to the Executing Court to go beyond the decree, for deciding a issue which falls within exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which is impermissible. 13. Allowing the Executing Court, will amount to give a liberty to the Executing Court to go beyond the decree, for deciding a issue which falls within exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which is impermissible. 13. Thus, when there is no finding by the Tribunal that there is violation of the condition of the policy, on this basis of some passing reference, which is absolutely unwarranted, the Insurance Company could be allowed to recover any amount through the execution case being Revocation Case No. 27/2018. Entertaining the execution case by the Executing Court is absolutely bad. Thus, the proceeding of Revocation Case No. 27 of 2018 is set aside. 14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands allowed.