IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.890 OF 2014 (GM-AC) BETWEEN:
SRI C S PRABHUDEV S/O SHAMBULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS HOUSE NO. 840 MADAIAH ROAD BANGARPET TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT-563114.
(BY MR. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADV.) AND:
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD 1ST FLOOR BAGALUR MANSION DODDAPET KOLAR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-563112.
2. SMT. SUSHILAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O PETECHAMANAHALLI KOLAR CITY-563112.
3. KUM SHOBHA D/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/O PETECHAMANAHALLI KOLAR CITY-563112.
… PETITIONER 4. SRI JAGADISH S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/O PETECHAMANAHALLI KOLAR CITY-563112.
5. KUM SUPRIYA D/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SHOBHA R/O PETECHAMANAHALLI KOLAR CITY-563112.
6. SMT. PAPAMMA W/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O PETECHAMANAHALLI KOLAR CITY-563112.
… RESPONDENTS (BY MR. L SREEKANTA RAO, ADV FOR R1 (ABSENT) R-2 TO 6 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ANN-A, DT.25.9.13, MADE ON IA. DT.22.8.12, FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN MVC.NO.1122/02, BY THE COURT OF PRL. SR.CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, KOLAR.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
2. In this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 25.09.2013 passed by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, by which warrant for attachment has been issued against the petitioner.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question. The award was passed on 10.12.2008 against the petitioner who was held liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,56,000/-. However, the Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the amount and granted liberty to the insurance company to recover the same from the petitioner.
4. In view of the directions issued by the Tribunal, the insurance company deposited the amount. Thereafter, the insurance company filed an application before the Tribunal seeking a direction not to disburse the amount in favour of the claimants and made a prayer to the Tribunal to attach the vehicle of the petitioner. Thereupon, a direction was issued by the Tribunal to attach the vehicle of the petitioner. However, the vehicle was not found. Thereupon a warrant was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application seeking recall of the aforesaid warrant. However, the aforesaid application has been rejected by the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the Tribunal has passed an award it becomes functus officio, therefore, it has no jurisdiction to deal with the subsequent proceedings.
6. I have considered the submissions made on both the sides. Admittedly, the award was passed by the Tribunal and it had become functus officio and had no jurisdiction to deal with the subsequent proceedings and the remedy of the claimants, if any, was to seek execution of the award passed in their favour. The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS