Execution petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act are subject to a 12-year limitation period, and failure to comply renders them invalid.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.

1. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed order dated 03.06.2023, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-1, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, in Execution Petition No.89-Exe/10 of 2017.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that Sh. Man Dass had approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by way of a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of the death of Sh. Moti Ram in a Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal.

3. The claim petition of Man Dass was allowed by the learned Tribunal in terms of Annexure P-1 dated 30.10.1996. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in favour of Man Dass.

4. It is a matter of record and not disputed that in the appeal that was preferred against the said award by the Insurance Company, this Court modified the award passed by the learned Tribunal to the effect that the Insurance Company was called upon to pay the amount at the first instance and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The petitioners before this Court are the owners of the vehicle. Thereafter, the Insurance Company filed an execution petition for the execution of the award, in terms of the order passed by this Court on 27.05.2005 seeking recovery of the amount from the owners of the vehicle that was paid by the Insurance Company to the claimants. In terms of the impugned order, learned Tribunal has allowed the execution petition and petitioners herein have been fastened with the liability as is mentioned therein to indemnify the Insurance Company. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has inter alia argued that the order passed by the learned Executing Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that the Insurance Company could not have had filed an execution petition and at the maximum it could have filed a suit for recovery against the petitioners on the strength of the order that was passed by this Court in FAO. He further submitted that besides this, otherwise also, the order under challenge is not sustainable for the reason that the execution proceedings were initiated by the Insurance Company after the expiry of limitation and this extremely important aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the learned Executing Court while passing the impugned order.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent referred to the order of this Court passed in FAO No.247 of 1997, dated 27.05.2005 and stated that in fact this Court in this order itself observed that the Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover this amount from the owners without filing any separate suit and by filing execution proceedings before the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. He further submitted that there is no limitation prescribed for filing execution in Motor Accident matters. Accordingly, learned counsel submitted that as there is no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the impugned order as well as other documents appended therewith.

8. In the light of the fact that this Court while disposing of FAO No.247 of 1997, in terms of order dated 27.05.2005 had observed that the Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the amount after satisfying the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the owner without filing any separate suit and by filing execution proceedings before the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, this Court is of the considered view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the execution petition for the recovery of the amount was not maintainable has no merit.

9. Therefore, the course that was adopted by the Insurance Company to recover the amount cannot be faulted with