( 1 ) THOUGH these two revisions arise from two different proceedings pending before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribfunalcum-1st additional District Judge, Nellore, since both the cases arise out of the same accident, they are being disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) C. R. P. NO. 961 of 2005 arises out of the order dated 10. 01. 2005 in I. A. No. 1702 of 2004 in O. P. No. 531 of 2004 directing the respondent therein, who is the revision petitioner in c. R. P. No. 961 of 2005, to furnish security for an amount of rs. 3,50,000/- on or before 17-01-2005 and directing attachment be for judgment of the property specified in the schedule mentioned in the petition in case of his default.

( 3 ) C. R. P. NO. 4861 of 2005 is filed by the claimants in O. P. No. 16 of 2005 being aggrieved by the order in I. A. No. 72 of 2005 dismissing the petition seeking attachment before Judgment of t he properties belonging to the first respondent therein, who is the revision petitioner in C. R. P. No. 961 of 2005.

( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, I would hereinafter refer the claimants in the O. Ps as claimants, and the revision petitioner in c. R. P. No. 961 of 2005, who is the first respondent in c. R. P. No. 4861 of 2005, as the respondent.

( 5 ) THE claimant in O. P. No. 531 of 2004 is the injured, and the claimants in O. P. No. 16 of 2005 are the legal representatives of the deceased-Siva Narayana. The case of the claimants in both the O. Ps is that respondent is the owner of a tractor and trailer and that his driver, due to his rash and negligent driving caused an accident resulting in the death of the deceased, (whose legal representatives filed O. P. No. 16 of 2005) and injuries to the claimant in O. P. No. 531 of 2004, and that the respondent with a view to defeat their claim is trying to secret his properties and sought attachment before judgment of his proportion mentioned in the schedules appended to the petitions. The Tribunal while allowing the petition for attachment before judgment in O. P. No. 531 of 2004 dismissed the petition filed by the claimants in O. P. No. 16 of 2005. Hence, these revisions by the aggrieved parties.

( 6 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties at length.

( 7 ) THE main contention of the learned Counsel for the claimants in O. P. No. 16 of 2005 is that the Tribunal which in the petition filed by the claimant in O. P. No. 531 of 2004 that having found that the respondent is trying to secret his properties to defeat his claim ordered furnishing of security at the pain of attachment before judgment in case of his default was in error and not passing the same order in favour of the claimants in O. P. No. 16 of 2005.

( 8 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that since the provisions of Rule 5 of Order 38 C. P. C. are not applicable to the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act") the Tribunal passing an order of conditional attachment in O. P. No. 531 of 2004 is unsustainable more so because claimants failed to produce any document to show that respondent is the owner of the tractor allegedly involved in the accident. Relying on the definition of owner in Section 2 of the Act since respondent is neither the registered owner of the accident vehicle nor is in possession thereof under a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or hypothecation he cannot in any event, be made liable for payment of compensation and so there is no prima facie case against the respondent for an order under Rule 5 of order 38 C. P. C. being passed against him, even assuming that i hat provision applies to the proceedings under the Act He placed strong reliance on ansari V. Hajrat Ali Ansari, 2004 ACJ 1056. S. N. Shanmugham V. Shankarlal Jain, 2004 ACJ 1346. and New India Assurance co. Ltd. , V. Sheela Rani, 1999 ACJ 213. in support of the said contention. Relying on Rule 473 of the A. P. Motor Vehicles Rules ("the Rules") he contended that only those provisions of C. P. C. mentione

Click Here to Read the rest of this document