AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shamsner Bahadur, J.—This application which is described as a civil Revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises a question of considerable importance on which the parties'' counsel are agreed there is no authoritative pronouncement.
In an accident which took place on 11th of February, 1959, Bachan Singh, a passenger in the bus, was killed and a claim was made by his widow and two daughters before the Accidents Claims Tribunal u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act). The Tribunal made an award on 11th October, 1960 in which compensation payable to the claimants was assessed at Rs. 18,000/-. Sham Kaur, the widow, was to be paid Rs. 8000/- while Harbans Kaur and Balbir Kaur daughters were to be given sums of Rs. 4000/- and 6,000/-, respectively. The Tribunal however held that the claim made by the daughters was barred by time. An appeal from the judgment of the Tribunal was preferred to the High Court which on 15th December, 1965, raised the-amount of compensation to Rs. 36,000/-and also held that the claim of the daughters of Bachan Singh was within time.1 The apportionment of the assessment of Rs. 36,000/- was made as follows:
(1) Rs. 16,000/- to the widow,
(2) Rs. 8,000/- to Harbans Kaur, and
(3) Rs. 12,000/- to Balbir Kaur.
It may be mentioned in passing that the two daughters were treated on a different footing as Balbir Kaur was an unmarried minor. Out of the sum of Rs. 36,000/- a sum of Rs. 2000/- was to be paid by the insurance company, namely the Northern India Transporters Insurance Company, and the balance of Rs. 34,000/- was to be paid by the second Respondent, Sheikhupura Transport Company Limited, whose driver was held responsible for the accident. There is no dispute with regard to the sum of Rs. 2000/- which has been paid to the claimants by the insurance company.
For the purpose of realising the balance of Rs. 34,000/- the Petitioners Sham Kaur and her daughters moved the Claims Tribunal in execution proceedings under Rule 9.4 (6) of Chapter IX of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940. Under this rule "the Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers in regard to contempts, tesistance and the like which a civil Court may exercise in the execution of a decree". Rule 9.4, under which there are six sub-rules, relates to the procedure and powers of Claims Tiibunal and Sub-rule (6) which has been cited above is pre-fixed by the words "in enforcing of the orders". There is not a word in the first five sub-rules of Rule 9.4 about the execution of assessment orders made by the Claims Tribunal and all that is said is that evidence before the Claims Tribunal is to be recorded in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Adverting to the provisions of the Act itself, reference may be made to Section 110-A, which is headed by the caption "application for compensation". Such an application for compensation, under Sub-section (1), can be made by the persons specified in Clauses (a), (b) and (c); Sub-section (2) requires that such an application has to be made before the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred. Sub-section (3) which provides a valuable clue says that "no application for compensation under this section shall be entertained unless it is made within sixty days of the occurrence of the accident.
It seems to me that only claims for compensation have to be made u/s 110-A, for no application under this provision can conceivably be made for execution of an award which has been made by the Tribunal. There is no specific provision with regard to the execution of the award which has been made by the Tribunal apart from what is stated in Section 110-E which is to this effect:
Where any money is duo from the insurer under an award, the Claims Tribunal may, on an application made to it by the person entitled to the money, issue a certificate for the amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.
Unsuccessful in their efforts to obtain the sum of Rs. 34,000/- the Petitioners moved the Tribunal for the appointment of a Receiver of the properties belon-ing to the second Respondent. While expressing its sympathy with the Petitioners, the Tribunal in the order passed on 29th of November, 1966, has shown its inability to pass an appropriate order as no power is given in its view by the Act or the Rules to make orders in execution proceedings. Mr. Madan Lal Sethi the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, in his arguments has relied once again on Sub-rule (6) of Rule 9.4 and has urged that when the Claims Tribunal has all the powers in enforcing the orders in regard to contempts, resistance and the like which a civil Court may exercise in the execution of a decree, there is no apparent reason why the Tribunal should not have exercised its jurisdiction in affording the relief asked for. It is somewhat surprising that no dispute has arisen so far with regard to execution of awards made by the Claims Tribunals which have been in existence for many years. It is stated by the counsel that a similar matter is pending in the Delhi High Court, and it is mentioned in the order of the Tribunal that some amendments are also on the legislative anvil. Be that as it may, I think that in the exercise of my revisional jurisdiction I would not pass an order which is not open to appeal by either side. The matter, as I said before, is of great importance and I think it would be in fitness of things if the petition was heard and decided by larger Bench. The papers may be placed before the Hon''ble the Chief Justice for this purpose. It would be desirable that the case should be heard at a very early date.
JUDGMENT
This matter has arisen in the following circumstances:
In an accident resulting in the death of Bachan Singh, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 18,000/- by its award dated the 11th of October, 1960. The claimants appealed to this Court and on appeal this Court enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs. 18..000/- to Rs. 36,000/-. Out of this amount, Rs. 34,000/ has to be paid by the Transport Company whose vehicle caused the death of Bachan Singh. The amount is payable to the widow and two daughters, of the deceased. One of the daughters is a minor. On the 1st of April, 1966, an application for execution of the award was made. In paragraph 6 of the application, it was clearly stated that the interim execution in this case was sought by an appointment of a receiver. The Tribunal appointed a receiver on the 19th of July, 1966. The Transport Company took objection to the appointment of a receiver and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal upheld the objection by its order dated the 29th of November, 1966. The Petitioner then moved this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. This petition came up before Shamsher Bahadur, J. and the learned Judge in view of the importance of the question involved which required determination and in view of absence of authorities on the subject, referred the matter to a larger Bench and that is how the matter has been placed before us.
Mr. Sethi has brought to our notice the recent amendment to Rule 20 by notification No. G.S.R./CA.4/39/S. 111. A/Adm(1)/68 dated the 21st of June, 1968 1968 A C.J. (Articles & Statute Section), page. Before its amendment, Rule 20 read as follows:
The following provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall so far as may be apply to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, namely Order V, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30, Order IX, order XIII, Rules 3 to 10- Order XVI, Rules 2 to 21 ; Order XVII and Order XXIII, Rules 1 to 3.
After its amendment, it reads as follows:
The following provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall so far as may be apply to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, namely order V, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30 ; Order IX, Order XIII, Rules 3 to 10 ; Order XVI, Rules 2 to 21 ; Order XVII; Order XXI and Order XXIII, Rules 1 to 3.
This rule has been framed u/s 111-Aof the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the lacuna, so far it existed regarding the execution of awards of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, has been removed and the award can now be executed like a decree under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. This position has not been controverted by the learned Counsel for the Respondents.
For the reasons recorded above, we allow this petition and remit the case to the Tribunal to proceed with the application for execution dated 1st of April 1966 in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 12th of August, 1968. There will be no orders as to costs.