C.R.Ps.
PRAYER (in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.169 of 2017): Civil Revision Petition is filed, under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order made in E.P.No.63 of 2012 in M.C.O.P.No.355 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Karur, dated 26.12.2016.
PRAYER (in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.170 of 2017): Civil Revision Petition is filed, under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order made in E.P.No.64 of 2012 in M.C.O.P.No.348 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Karur, dated 26.12.2016.
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.169 of 2017 has been laid impugning the order, dated 26.12.2016, passed in E.P.No.63 of 2012 in M.C.O.P.No.355 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Karur.
2. C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.170 of 2017 has been laid impugning the order, dated 26.12.2016, passed in E.P.No.64 of 2012 in M.C.O.P.No.348 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Karur.
3. On the basis of the materials placed, it is found that the petitioner, who is the third respondent in M.C.O.P.Nos.348 and 355 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Karur, has suffered decrees in the above said proceedings along with the other respondents in respect of the claim applications preferred by the claimants in the said proceedings, which had been levied seeking for compensation with reference to the motor vehicle accident. It is found that awards have been passed in the above said M.C.O.Ps., holding that the respondents, including the petitioner herein, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation granted in the said proceedings in favour of the claimants therein. It is also found that the respondents 1 to 3 / respondents 4 to 6 in the above said M.C.O.Ps., preferred civil miscellaneous appeals impugning the awards passed in the M.C.O.P.Proceedings. However, the civil miscellaneous petitions have come to be disposed of by modifying the award amount passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, however, holding that the modified award amounts are jointly and severally to be paid by the respondents 1 to 3 / respondents 4 to 6 along with the other respondents and accordingly, it is found that they having deposited the award amount pursuant to the orders passed in the M.C.O.P.Proceedings as modified by the Appellate Court in the C.M.A.Proceedings, it is found that the High Court in the C.M.A.Proceedings granted liberty to them to initiate appropriate proceedings by way of execution proceedings for the recovery of the award amount along with interest accrued thereon from the respondents 2 and 3 in the M.C.O.P.Proceedings i.e., Ravi and Rajendran (petitioner herein), who were held to be in possession and control of the offending vehicle.
4. Following the same, it is found that the respondents 4 to 6 have levied necessary execution proceedings in the Court below under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure as against the above mentioned Ravi and Rajendram (petitioner herein). The petitioner resisted the execution petitions preferred by the respondents 1 to 3 / respondents 4 to 6 contending that the vehicle involved in the accident has been transferred to his wife's name only after the accident and therefore, he is not liable to pay the award amount and further, according to him, the respondents 1 to 3 / respondents 4 to 6 ought to have obtained the recovery certificate from the Tribunal under
Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, referred to as ?the Act) and further, according to him, when a specific provision is contemplated under
Section 174 of the Act to enforce the award, the respondents 1 to 3 / respondents 4 to 6 could not maintain the execution petitions under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C., and as regards the Award passed by the Tribunal, the same could be enforced by the Collector as if the same is an arrears of land revenue under
Section 174 of the Act and hence, according him, the applications preferred by the respondents 1 to 3 / respondents 4 to 6, under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C., are not maintainable and hence, the execution petitions are liable to be dismissed. However, the Court below did not accept the contentions put forth by the petitioner and accordingly, issued further directions to the petitioner and the other respondent in the execution petitions to deposit the award amount within a particular time frame work, failing which further action would be initiated against them. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petitions have been preferred.
5. As regards the contention of the petitioner that his wife was not the owner of the vehicle or in possession and control of the vehicle on the date of the accident and only subsequent to the accident, the ownership of the vehicle was transferred to her name and therefore, the petitioner cannot be mulcted with any liability for the award passed in the M.C.O.P.Proceedings and therefore, the execution petitions are not maintainable and liable to the rejected in limine, as rightly put forth by the respondents 1 to 3 / respondents 4 to 6, the above contentions of the petitioner if at all valid ought to have been raised by him in the M.C.O.P.Proceedings and when the M.C.O.P.Proceedings have been culminated in an Award passed against him i.e., the petitioner as well as the other respondents in the M.C.O.P.Proceedings and when the same had been modified / confirmed by the High Court in the C.M.A.Proceedings and when thereafter, there has been no challenge to the common Judgment and Decree passed in the C.M.A.Proceedings, the present plea of the petitioner that he is not liable to pay the award amount as the ownership of the vehicle had come to be transferred to his wife's name only after the accident is not acceptable. Therefore, the above case of the petitioner raised in the execution petitions has been rightly discountenanced by the Executing Court and the same does not warrant any interference, particularly, when the petitioner is liable to pay the award amount as per the common Judgment and Decree passed in the C.M.A.Proceedings.
6. Further, the contention of the petitioner that the respondents 1 to 3 / respondents 4 to 6 cannot maintain the execution proceedings, under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C., as the award is not in the nature of a decree of the Civil Court and they can maintain the same only under
Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the execution petitions preferred by the respondents 1 to 3 / respondents 4 to 6 are not maintainable also do not merit acceptance.
7. As rightly put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Parliament by enacting
Section 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has given ample powers to the State Government to frame appropriate Rules, which is detailed hereunder:
?176. Power to State Government to make rules.- A State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of
Sections 165 to
174, and in particular, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely-
(a)the form of application for claims for compensation and the particulars it may contain, and the fees, if any, to be paid in respect of such applications;
(b)the procedure to be followed by a Claims Tribunal in holding an inquiry under this Chapter;
(c)the powers vested in a Civil Court which may be exercised by a Claims Tribunal; appeal may be preferred against an award of a Claims Tribunal; and
(d)the form and the manner in which and the fees (if any) on payment of which an appeal may be preferred against an award of a Claims Tribunal; and
(e)any other matter which is to be, or may be prescribed.?
8. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that by invoking the above said power, the State Government has enacted the Tamil Nadu Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989 (hereinafter, referred to as ?the Rules) for the purpose of carrying into the proceedings under the Act applicable to the State of Tamil Nadu, which includes the Court fee payable in the State of Tamil Nadu in appeal, claim petition, application of provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure for the proceedings under the Act and all other procedures to be followed under the Act within the State of Tamil Nadu and the proceedings applicable for the execution of the award of the Tribunal. In this connection, Rule 22 of the Rules is referred to and the same reads as follows:
?22. Without prejudice to the provisions contained in
section 174, the Claims Tribunal shall for the purpose of enforcement of its award, have all the powers of a Civil Court in the execution of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) as if the award were a decree for the payment of money passed by such court in civil suit.?
9. Therefore, on a cumulative reading of
Section 174 of the Act read with Rule 22 of the Rules, it is found that any person, who has been granted award or the right to enforce the same passed by the Tribunal, has got an option for the recovery of the same either by proceeding under
Section 174 of the Act by seeking recourse under the Revenue Recovery Act or by filing necessary execution petition under Order XXI C.P.C. Therefore, when it is found that the above provision would enable the respondents 1 to 3 / respondents 4 to 6 to maintain the execution petition by taking recourse under Order XXI C.P.C., the present argument put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Award of the Tribunal could not be enforced by the respondents 1 to 3 / respondents 4 to 6 by invoking Order XXI C.P.C., is found to be unacceptable. As rightly put forth, it is left to the discretion of the concerned person, who has got the right to enforce the award or entitled to get the award to choose the best among the two options available to him and in such view of the matter, it is found that the execution petitions preferred by the respondents 1 to 3 / respondents 4 to 6, under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C., are perfectly maintainable and therefore, the contra submissions made with reference to the same by the petitioner to thwart the legal position are to be rejected and thrown out.
10. In support of the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the decision reported in (2015) 4 MLJ 264 [ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd., vs. N.S.K.Builders] is relied upon. However, a perusal of the said decision would go to show that it does not point out that the parties, who are entitled to enforce the award, are only to adhere to the procedures prescribed under
Section 173 of the Act and could not resort to the provision adumbrated under Order XXI C.P.C. Therefore, as rightly, argued by the learned counsel for the respondents, the above said decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. Still, the principles of law outlined in the above cited decision are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.
11. In view of the foregoing reasons, it is found that the petitioner has not made out any case on merits to dislodge the execution petitions preferred by the respondents 1 to 3 / respondents 4 to 6 and the contentions put forth by him with reference to the same are found to be not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, it is found that the Courts below have rightly discountenanced the pleas of the petitioner and passed further appropriate orders in the execution proceedings. In view of the said situation, the impugned orders of the Court below do not call for any interference from this Court.
12. Resultantly, the civil revision petitions are dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To:
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karur.
.