Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.07.2014 passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Gorakhpur in Release Application No. 28 of 2014 in MACP No. 498 of 2009 (Smt. Pramila @ Pramila Kunwar and others Vs. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal and others) (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition).
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order referred to above.
iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to release the amount of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 22.08.2013 passed in MACP No. 498 of 2009 (Smt. Pramila alias Pramila Kunwar and others Vs. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal and others) alongwith interest due thereon to the petitioners.
iv. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
v. Award the cost of the writ petition."
The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal gave an award for sum of Rs. 13,91,526/- alongwith 7% simple interest per annum to be computed on the awarded amount from the date of filing the claim petition till date of actual payment.
The respondent No. 2 i.e. National Insurance Company Limited had preferred First Appeal From Order (Defective) No. 1954 of 2013 challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and award dated 22.08.2013, the said appeal was accompanied with delay condonation application.
In the aforesaid appeal, this Court vide order dated 20.12.2013 had issued notice on the delay condonation application. The said delay condonation application accompanying with appeal is still pending consideration before the High Court. It has also been brought on record that till date the delay occurred in filing the aforesaid appeal had not been condoned by the Court.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioners had filed an application dated 10.07.2014 under Section 174 of the Act which was registered as Misc. (Execution) Case No. 78 of 2013 in MACP No. 498 of 2013. In response to the said application, the learned Tribunal issued recovery certificate to the Collector, Gorakhpur for recovering the awarded amount.
It is also apparent from the record that in pursuance to the recovery, the amount of Rs. 18,69,753/- was deposited with the learned Tribunal. The daughter of late Khageshwar Shahi, who died in motor accident had filed application before the learned Tribunal with prayer to grant permission to release her share amounting Rs. 2,50,000/- on the ground that she had solemnized her marriage on 06.07.2014 and she needed her share, the said application had been supported by the petitioner No. 1 who has filed her affidavit being paper No. 12 Ga dated 15.07.2014. The petitioners had filed release application with prayer to release the awarded amount in their favour and due to non releasing the said amount they are suffering irreparable loss. The Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Gorakhpur had passed the impugned order dated 31.07.2014 by which he had directed that the share of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 as well as half share of the petitioner No. 1 in the award shall be invested in the nationalized bank under the fixed deposit scheme for a period of five years and the said amount shall be abided by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforementioned pending appeal and further directed that the remaining share of the petitioner No. 1 in the awarded amount and her share in the interest amount i.e. Rs. 5 lacs shall be released to her only furnishing the personal bonds as well as two securities in the like amount with an undertaking given in that regard that the said amount shall be repayable to learned Tribunal in case the Hon'ble High Court passes adverse order against her in pending appeal.
The claimants being aggrieved by this order has filed the present writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court finds that the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Gorakhpur while passing the impugned order dated 31.07.2014 had committed manifest error in modifying the award of the Tribunal whereas he had no jurisdiction or power to modify the award and was only required to act as executing court to release the amount as per terms & conditions of the award. It is also admitted situation that no doubt the award dated 20.08.2013 has been challenged by the respondent No. 2 by means of the First Appeal From Order (Defective) No. 1954 of 2013 but at the same time it is relevant to mention that the said FAFO was filed as time barred and only the notices had been issued on Section 5 of the Limitation Act and till today the defects has not been removed, therefore, there is no impediment or embargo as such on the award dated 22.08.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and others reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176 and has also placed reliance to the order dated 25.07.2013 passed in Writ C No. 40255 of 2013 (Santosh Kumar Maurya Vs. District Judge/MACT and 3 others).
In view of above, learned Tribunal for purposes of releasing the amount in favour of the petitioners having imposed certain conditions for which learned Tribunal does not possess the jurisdiction in law and even otherwise the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, hence rules framed thereunder do not empower the learned Tribunal to lay down such conditions for the purposes of releasing the amount in absence statutory force in this regard. The impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal imposing the conditions arbitrarily for the purpose of releasing the amount in favour of the petitioners cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 31.07.2014 passed by the Special judge, Anti Corruption, Gorakhpur in Release Application No. 28 of 2014 in MACP No. 498 of 2009 is quashed with direction to the respondent No. 1 to decide the claim of the petitioners afresh in the light of the observation made above.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.10.2014 Jaswant