(This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying quash the order dated 8.09.2005 passed in Ex.No.38/2004 (i.e. in MVC No.942/2002) by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and MACT, Kunigal vide Annexure –A and etc.,)

Heard the Counsel for the petitioner. The respondents who are served remain unrepresented.

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner was a claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, seeking compensation in respect of the injuries suffered in a motor accident. The respondent was the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident. The claim was allowed after contest. The insurer of the vehicle was absolved of liability. There was an award against the respondent in a sum of Rs.3,91,301/-. The respondent failed to satisfy the award. The petitioner had sought to execute the award and filed an execution petition claiming as a decree-holder before the Tribunal and sought for attachment and sale of movable and immovable properly of the respondent and for arrest of the respondent and detention in civil prison.

Notice of the petition having been served – the respondent appeared and claimed that he had no movable or immovable property- and possessed no means to pay the decretal amount. The vehicle involved had been seized by the financier and taken away.

On hearing the parties, the execution petition was dismissed. A revision petition was filed before this Court in the first instance against the said order but was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to file this petition.

3. It is contended by Shri S.K. Venkata Reddy that in the absence of material to demonstrate that the motor vehicle was confiscated by the financier for reason of nonpayment of instalments, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the execution petition.

On the other hand, the respondent having violated the terms of an indemnity bond executed at the time of seeking delivery of the vehicle during pendency of the proceedings, had engineered the disposal of the vehicle in favour of a third-party only in order to deprive the petitioner of recovering compensation amount by the attachment of any property of the respondent, including the said vehicle. The Court was hence not justified in absolving the respondent of a blatant violation of the order of the Court especially in the face of circumstance that there were no documents produced before the Court to evidence the fact that the vehicle was seized by an alleged financier for default in payment of instalment of the purchase price. It is contended that the petitioner who has suffered serious physical disability on account of the injuries suffered in the accident, the amount awarded is to compensate and alleviate the suffering of the petitioner and to sustain his livelihood – the respondent being granted a reprieve by the dismissal of the execution petition on the ground that the respondent does not have the means to pay the decretal amount with a direction to the petitioner to seek recovery if and when the respondent acquires property capable of satisfying the award has resulted in injustice, and hence the petitioner seeks an appropriate direction.

4. The respondent who has been served remain unrepresented. The situation as faced by the petitioner herein is a recurring feature, whereby, the claimants, who were awarded compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal are unable to recover the amount when the motor vehicle concerned is not covered under an insurance policy and the owner of the vehicle pleading his inability to meet the liability on the ground that he is without means to pay. At times, the claim is genuine and at other times. It may not be so. The claimant in any event is helpless when the court stays its hand accepting the contention of the owner of the vehicle as in the present case on hand. As seen from the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with the provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, rea