A decree passed in favor of a dead person is not a nullity and can be executed by the legal representatives of the deceased claimant.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 07.11.2016, passed in R.E.P.No.12 of 2016 in M.C.O.P.No.47 of 2012 on the file of Additional District Court, Namakkal.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 07.11.2016, passed in R.E.P.No.12 of 2016 in M.C.O.P.No.47 of 2012 on the file of Additional District Court, Namakkal, whereby, the prayer of the legal heirs of the deceased claimant for execution of the award was rejected.

2. Petitioners are the legal heirs of one V.Seenivasan, who sustained injuries and multiple fractures on both of his legs in an accident, as a result of which, he suffered total permanent disability. He filed M.C.O.P.No.47 of 2012 before the Court below / Tribunal, claiming a compensation of Rs.35.00 lakhs, but the claim was restricted to Rs.25.00 lakhs. The Tribunal, after full-fledged trial, passed an award on 16.04.2015 for a sum of Rs.17,18,300/- and the said award has become final, as the respondent insurer has not filed any appeal or review against the same. Unfortunately, before passing of the award, the claimant died and the same was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. Hence, the award stood in the name of the deceased claimant. Thereafter, the legal heirs of the deceased claimant filed R.E.P.No.12 of 2016 before the Tribunal for execution of the award, but the same was dismissed on the ground that the claimant died before passing of the award. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court by way of this revision.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records.

4. The only point that arises for consideration in this case is, whether the decree passed in favour of a dead person is null and void and not executable ?

5. On perusal of the records, it is noticed that in M.C.O.P.No.47 of 2012, the evidence on the side of claimant was closed on 04.01.2013 and from 18.12.2013 till 27.03.2015, the respondent insurer dragged on the matter on the pretext of examination of witnesses on its side, but it never examined any witnesses or filed any documents in support of its case, and the evidence on its side was closed. After full-fledged trial, the Tribunal passed the award, as stated above. The death of the claimant cannot also be ruled out because of the dilatory tactics adopted by the respondent insurer. Were the respondent prompt in prosecuting the matter, the matter would not have been dragged on for years together. Because of the laches on the part of the respondent, the claimant could not reap the benefits of the award. Now, when a petition for execution of the award is filed by the legal heirs of the deceased claimant, the respondent is taking an evasive stand that the decree passed after the death of the claimant cannot be executed. In fact, there was a lacuna in giving intimation to the Tribunal about the death of the claimant. However, the said lacuna, according to the petitioners, was not intentional, but, it was due to beyond one's knowledge. The stand of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the evidence on the side of claimant was closed and it was pending only for the side of respondent, there was no need for him to contact the claimant and only after passing of the award, when he tried to contact the claimant, only then, he came to know about the death of the claimant. This Court finds substance in the said stand.

6. Where the Court proceeds with the case in ignorance of the fact of death of a person and passes a decree, that decree cannot be treated as a nullity. It may, no doubt, be a wrong decree, but it will have to be set aside by taking appropriate proceedings, such as, appeal, revision or review.

7. While a decree passed against a dead person is ab initio void, a decree passed in favour of a dead person is not a nullity and such a decree is only an irregularity. A decree passed without the knowledge of the death of the claimant can be executed by his legal representatives. It is not open