Back
2011 Supreme(Cal) 473
High Court of Calcutta
Syamal Kanti Chakrabarti, J.
Mira Roy Chowdhury – Appellant
Versus
Arup Saha – Respondent
C. O. Mo. 433 of 2007
Decided on : Apr 01, 2011
Biswajit Dutta, Basudev Gayen, Dipak Kumar Mukherjee, Rajib Mukherjee, Jayanta Kumar Sanyal
A Civil Court has jurisdiction to execute an award transferred to it by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, but it must do so in accordance with the mode of recovery prescribed in Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is through the Collector as an arrear of land revenue.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - EXECUTION OF AWARD - JURISDICTION - CIVIL COURT - CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - TRANSFER OF AWARD - MODE OF RECOVERY - SECTION 110E, 110F, 174 - ORDER 21 RULES 5, 6, 8 CPC - WEST BENGAL MOTOR VEHICLES RULES, 1989 RULE 342 - Where a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal transfers an award to a Civil Court for execution, the Civil Court must follow the mode of recovery prescribed in Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is through the Collector as an arrear of land revenue, and not under the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Fact of the Case:
A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants, with a direction that the insurer pay a certain sum and the vehicle owners pay the balance. The insurer paid its share, but the vehicle owners did not. The decree-holders filed an execution case, which was transferred to the Civil Court. The Civil Court held that it had no jurisdiction to execute the award and dismissed the execution case.
Finding of the Court:
The Civil Court has jurisdiction to execute the transferred award, but it must do so in accordance with the mode of recovery prescribed in Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is through the Collector as an arrear of land revenue.
Issues: 1. Whether a Civil Court has jurisdiction to execute an award transferred to it by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal? 2. If so, what is the mode of recovery to be followed by the Civil Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A Civil Court has jurisdiction to execute an award transferred to it by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, but it must do so in accordance with the mode of recovery prescribed in Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is through the Collector as an arrear of land revenue. 2. Section 110F of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ousts the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any question relating to claims for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal, but it does not oust the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to execute a transferred award for recovery of money in absence of any mode of execution of a decree by a Claims Tribunal outside its jurisdiction in the Motor Vehicles Act.
Final Decision: The revisional application is allowed, and the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, is set aside. The learned Second Transferee Court is directed to take further steps in terms of Section 174 and Section 110E of the Motor Vehicles Act and the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 read with Section 30 and Order 21 Rule 8 CPC for realization of balance amount of the award through Collector, Hooghly as arrear of land revenue as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
1. THE Judgment of the Court was as follows : In the instant revisional application Order No. 147 dated 06.01.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Hooghly in Misc. Case No. 16 of 2005 arising out of Transfer Execution Case No. 01 of 1997 has been assailed. By such order learned Court below has disposed of an application dated 26.09.2005 filed by the judgment debtor questioning jurisdiction of the Court to execute a transferred award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 10th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in M.J.C. Case No. 162/87 followed by M.J.C. Execution Case No. 06 of 1995.
2. THE brief fact of this case is that one Dwijendra Nath Chowdhury instituted an accident claim case being M.J.C. No. 162 of 1987 before the 10th Bench of City Civil Court, Calcutta against Durga Sankar Sana and Uma Shankar Saha being owners of the offending vehicle and Oriental Insurance Company Limited. THE said case was decided with an award of Rs.70,000/- with cost of Rs.101/- on 28.07.1994 with interest at the rate of 15%. THE insurer paid Rs.15,000/- with interest in compliance with the order through Small Causes Court, Calcutta on 29.06.1998. Then the decree holder filed Execution Case being M.J.C. Execution Case No. 06 of 1995 on 04.07.1995 and after his death on 23.01.1996 the present petitioners have been substituted on 24.06.1996. As the properties of judgment debtors i.e., owners of the offending vehicle situates within the jurisdiction of Serampore Police Station of Hooghly District, said Execution Case was transferred by order dated 10.10.1996 to the learned District Judge, Hooghly who by order dated 22.01.1997 has transferred the case to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2nd Court, Hooghly which is renumbered as Transfer Execution Case No. 1 of 1997.
Meanwhile the decree holders in Transfer Execution Case No. 1 of 1997 filed an application dated 10.01.2005 under Order 21 Rule 66 read with Section 62 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for fixing a date for settling Public Auction Sale Proclamation of the attached immovable properties of the judgment debtors filed in the case being Misc. Case No. 16 of 2005 on 28.06.2005 in Transfer Execution Case No. 1 of 1997 praying for dismissal of the said execution case and for release of the properties and Route Permit of Vehicle No. W.G.A. 6070 attached by order No. 68 dated 19.10.2001. During pendency of said Misc. Case No, 16 of 2005, the judgment debtors have filed another application on 26.09.2005 challenging jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Hooghly at Chinsurah to entertain the Transfer Execution Case No. 1 of 1997. By order No. 147 dated 06.01.2007 the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) held that the said Court is a Civil Court and not a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and as such he has no jurisdiction to execute the award granted by such Tribunal.
3. IT was contended before the learned Court below that there is a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Chinsura, in the District of Hooghly. Therefore, the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to execute the award on transfer of the decree in Execution Case No. 6/1995. The learned Court below is of the view that if in the special Act there is provision for execution of the decree, the general provision as contained in the Civil Procedure Code will not be applicable. In the instant case there is a specific provision like Sections 110 and 110F of the Motors Vehicles Act, 1939 to be read with Sections 174 and 175 of the said Act. Therefore, he has allowed the prayer giving liberty to the decree-holder/opposite party to move this matter before the appropriate forum for execution of the award.
4. BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order the instant application has been preferred by the decree holder/claimants. The learned Lawyer for the petitioners herein submits that the learned District Judge has transferred the decree for execution wi
