This is a revision by the claimants against order dated 3.3.2000 of the 7th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in execution proceedings in claim Case No. 39 of 1981 by which it has been held that the application for execution of the award dated 3.8.1985 is barred by limitation.

The application for execution of the award has been filed on 5.9.1997.

According to Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 limitation period is 12 years for the execution of any decree or order of any civil Court. The limitation is to be reckoned from the date of the decree or the date of the order. In this case, the award was passed on 3.8.1985 and, therefore, there has been delay of 35 days in filing the application for enforcement of the award.

The award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is enforceable by it. It has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in Sarmamiya Bai v. M.P. Rajya Parivahan Nigam, 1990 JLJ 386 = AIR 1990 M.P. 306 that the Claims Tribunal possesses inherent jurisdiction to enforce its own award in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code as applicable to execution of orders and decrees passed by a Civil Court. Earlier in Krishan Gopal v. Dattatraya 1971 JLJ 903 = AIR 1972 M.P. 125 it has been held that the Claims Tribunal is a Court subordinate to the High Court and its orders are revisable under section 115 CPC. Now Rule 240 of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 specifically makes order 21 CPC applicable to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal.

In view of the above decisions it can be held that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal falls within the meaning of the words ''order of any Civil Court" used in Article 136. Thus, the limitation for execution of the award is 12 years from the date of the award.

In the present case, it was specifically pleaded that some of the claimants were minors. The age of Pradeep Kumar has been shown as 18 years on the date of filing of the application for enforcement of the award i.e. on 5.9.1997. The Claims Tribunal must examine the question when the claimants who were minors attained the majority. Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable for enforcement of the award also. The Claims Tribunal should, therefore, further examine the question whether this section can come to the rescue of the claimants who were minors at the time of the award.

The revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Claims Tribunal is directed to proceed to make inquiry as per observations made above and then decide the question whether the application for enforcement of the award on behalf of the claimants who were minors at the time of the award is maintainable or not.