Tribunal's inherent powers for enforcement of its Award and the applicability of facilitative provisions in the Delhi Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 and the Code of Civil Procedure.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

1. In execution of a Motor Accident Claim Award, the appellant stood surety for the Judgment Debtor (JD) regarding payment of compensation to respondent No.1. The JD defaulted in paying the compensation amount and hence warrants of attachment dated 20.12.2016, apropos the surety’s property, were issued by the Executing Court in Execution Petition No. 47/15. This warrant has been impugned by the appellant on the ground that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to issue orders apropos execution of the same through the Executing Court, instead if at all required, the warrant ought to have been issued through District Judge, Alwar, Rajasthan where the property is situate. He relies upon Rules 31 and 32 of the Delhi Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008, which read as under :-

"31. Enforcement of award of the Claims Tribunal.-Subject to the provisions of section 174 of the Act, the Claims Tribunal shall, for the purpose of enforcement of its award, have all the powers of a Civil Court in the execution of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(5 of 1908), as if the award where a decree for the payment of money passed by such court in a civil suit.

32. Vesting of powers of Civil Court in the Claims Tribunal.-Without prejudice to the provisions of section 169 of the Act every Claims Tribunal shall exercise all the powers of a Civil Court, and in doing so for discharging its functions it shall follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(5 of 1908)."

2. The learned counsel also relies upon provisions of Sections 39 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘the Code’), which read as under :-

“39. Transfer of decree.-

(1) The Court which passed a decree may, on the application of the decree-holder, send it for execution to another Court,-

(a) if the person against whom the decree is passed actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other Court, or

(b) if such person has not property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree sufficient to satisfy such decree and has property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other Court, or

(c) if the decree directs the sale or delivery of immovable property situate outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which passed it, or

(d) if the Court which passed the decree considers for any other reason, which it shall record in writing, that the decree should be executed by such other Court.

(2) The Court which passed a decree may of its own motion send it for execution to any subordinate Court of competent jurisdiction.

40. Transfer of decree to Court in another State.-

Where a decree is sent for execution in another State, it shall be sent to such Court and executed in such manner as may be prescribed by rules in force in that State.”

A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that the Award can be executed as specified therein. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that Section 39 sub-Section (4) of the Code provides a specific bar on a Court of execution on passing a decree against a person’s property outside the local limits of its jurisdiction. In the same vein, he contends that the decree has to be served to the other State for execution under Section 40 of the Code. He submits that in the absence of any rules for imprisonment for a defaulter in the State of Rajasthan, the appellant cannot be imprisoned.

3. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Deval, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/beneficiary of the Award submits that the surety has no locus because the Award is not against him and at best, if anybody could have any grievance, it would be the JD and the petitioner is not a party to the case.

4. Mr. Jain, the learned Amicus Curiae states that the nature of the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are different than those in a normal civil suit; in Rajasthan State Road