Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38905 of 2018 Petitioner :- Raj Mohammad And Another Respondent :- Zila Sahkari Sangh Ltd. Deoria And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vashishtha Tiwari
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
The present petition is directed against the judgment and orders dated 10.9.2018 and 14.9.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge (IV)/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deoria in execution case no. 36 of 2018 arising out of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 312 of 1999.
The petitioners are aged about 60 years. The claim petition was filed by them on the death of their son, in an accident occurred on 18.8.1999. Vide judgment and order dated 19th April, 2001, an award of Rs. 1,52,000/- was granted in favour of both the claimants namely the parents of the victim. The First Appeal filed by the respondent no. 1 has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 8.11.2017 upholding the award.
After decision in the First Appeal, the petitioners have filed an application for release of the awarded sum which has been decided vide order dated 10.9.2018. A perusal of the order passed by the executing court shows that the execution court has distributed the total sum awarded to the claimants in two category and only sum of Rs. 32,000/- and odd in favour of each of the claimant was allowed to be paid through cheque whereas a sum of Rs. 75,000/- payable to each of the claimant has been directed to be deposited in a Fixed Deposit account of a Nationalized Bank for a period of 5 years.
For recall of this order, an application dated 12.9.2018 was filed by the petitioner which has been rejected vide order dated 14.9.2018 on the principle that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree and that the directions issued by the executing Court for investment of a portion of the sum awarded in favour of the claimants is in accordance with the Rule 220-B(9) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Amendment Rules, 2011.
As per the said rule, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has opined that there is a mandate to deposit the portion of awarded money for the benefit of the claimants and, therefore, the application dated 12.9.2018 does not deserve any merit.
This conclusion drawn by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot be accepted for the facts noted hereinabove.
Looking to the age of the claimants and the fact that their son was only 16 years old when he had died in the accident occurred on 18.8.1999 and that the claim petition was allowed in the year 2001 and the First Appeal was decided after a period of 16 years, there was no justification for the executing court to deposit the awarded sum after dismissal of the appeal. The executing court has completely overlooked the age of the claimants. The provisions as contained in Rule 220-B(9) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Amendment Rules, 2011 cannot be construed in such a strict manner rather these are beneficial provision which are required to be given liberal construction so as to address the interest of the claimant. The petitioners herein have filed the execution application as they are in need of money. This fact could not have been disputed by the executing court. The directions issued by the executing Court to invest the money in a long time scheme, rather would run against the interest of the claimants.
For the aforesaid, the orders impugned dated 10.9.2018 and 14.9.2018 cannot be sustained. Both the orders are hereby quashed.
The matter is remitted to the executing court for fresh decision on a date to be fixed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The executing Court shall pass an appropriate order for release of the awarded money under the award dated 19th April, 2001 on the said date, after computation thereof.
Subject to the above observations and directions, the present petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 Brijesh