AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Kumar, J
The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-
“For direction upon the respondent no.2 to recover the rest of the compensation amount from the private respondent nos.3 to 6 and paid to the petitioner with interest as the same was earlier decided by the respondent no.2 that the compensation amount will be paid to the petitioner in 24 instalments by the Jamuna Prasad Kanojia (father of respondent no.4 to 6) but after his death his legal heirs (private respondents) has not paid the same.”
It appears that the petitioner has been granted Award of Rs.3,83,312/-in Title (M.V.) Suit No.82 of 2004 by the Additional District-cum-MVAC Tribunal, Bokaro vide order dated 31.05.2008. Against the said award, an appeal being M.A. No.11 of 2009 has been preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle which has been dismissed as withdrawn. For execution of the Award, certificate proceeding has been initiated being Certificate Case No.08 of 2009-10 and for execution of the decree, 24 instalments have been granted to the judgment debtor and he has deposited nine cheques but thereafter he died on 21.07.2011.
It is well settled law that for recovery of the amount from a dead person it can be recovered only upon the property left over or inherited by the legal heir.
It further appears that the certificate officer had issued notice to the legal heirs but they had filed an affidavit that no property has been inherited by them and as such they are not liable for the earlier judgment debtor who is now dead.
Thereafter, a Civil Miscellaneous Petition being C.M.P. No.03 of 2016 has been filed which has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.03.2024. Thus, only the claim of the petitioner is that she allowed to recover the amount from the legal heir.
It is settled principle of law that the legal heir is responsible only to the extent of property inherited and not beyond that.
In the present case, the certificate officer has given finding that no property has been inherited. Further, in the present proceeding nothing has been brought on record that there is property inherited by legal heirs. As such this Court finds no reason to entertain the present writ petition, accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.