( 1 ) THREE matters are linked up with the Division Bench, making the reference, taking the view that a common question of law arises in all the three matters and the question being of general importance, deserves dicision of a Larger Bench. Claimants/appellants have prayed for enhancement of compensation awarded under section 110b of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short, the Act, in this appeal. During pendency of the claim petition an order was passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Revision No. 134 of 1987 on 31-8-1989. By that order claimants' prayer for enforcement of the interim award, passed in the pending claim petition, under S. 92a of the Act, was rejected. Shortly and precisely, challenge to the correctness of the view expressed therein is the basis of the reference made to this Bench.

( 2 ) LEARNED District Judge, Shivpuri, acting as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, for short, the Tribunal, had passed the order dated 18-8-1986 (which was impugned in Civil Revision No. 134 of 1987) refusing to enforce interim award by applying the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short, C. P. C. pertaining to execution of decrees and orders. His view that S. 110e of the Act has circumscribed jurisdiction of the Tribunal and that it can only issue a certificate thereunder to the Collector for recovery of the amount due under the award as an arrear of land revenue was accepted by the learned single Judge. Although he referred to this Court's Full Bench decision in Mangilal v. Parasram, 1970 Jab LJ 142: 1970 Acc CJ 86, the learned single Judge observed that "at the time the decision was rendered, the provision of S. 110e of the Act was not in force. "

( 3 ) IN the other two matters, M. P. No. 678/ 88 and 1103/ 88, which are linked up with this appeal, the impugned orders were passed on 27-1-1987 and 25-1-1987 by the same learned District Judge, Shivpuri. By those orders, he refused to execute the awards which were passed by the District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nasik, under S. 110b of the Act in proceedings instituted before him in regard to accident which had taken place on 28-12-1980 within the jurisdiction of the said Tribunal. Petitioners in M. P. No. 1103/89 claimed compensation for the death of one Shivendra Singh who died in the accident, while the petitioner in M. P. No. 678/ 88, claimed compensation for injuries caused to her in the same accident. For Shivendra Singh's death, compensation awarded is Rs. 35,500/- and petitioner Kashibai has been awarded rs. 9,460/- for injuries caused to her. However, in each case, the Insurer's burden is restricted to Rs. 5,000/ -. For the remaining amount the claimants, therefore, levied execution separately against the owner of the same Tourist Bus in which the deceased and petitioner Kashibai were travelling. The owner Babulal Chintulal Gupta (respondent No. 2 in both petitions) being resident of Shivpuri, on claimants' prayer, the Claims Tribunal at Nasik proceeded under O. 21, R. 6 read with S. 39, C. P. C. and transferred for execution the awards to the Court of learned District Judge, Shivpuri. As that Court had already expressed an unfavourable view in passing the order dated 18-8-1986 which was upheld, as earlier alluded, in Civil Revision No. 134/87, the inevitable happened.

( 4 ) FOR this Bench's opinion on the above facts, the following question has been framed : "whether the Tribunal passing an award under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation to claimants for death or injuries lacks jurisdiction to enforce its award adopting procedure provided under C. P. C. , exercising its inherent jurisdiction in that regard?" in the referring order, it has been observed that Mangilal v. Parasram (AIR 1971 Madh Pra 5) (FB) (supra) had considered the question tangentially and it has also been observed that authorities cited at the Bar related to the States of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Punjab whe