Cont.P.No.1029 of 2018

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.08.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

Contempt Petition No.1029 of 2018

1.Indumathi

2.Minor Ajaidevan

3.Minor Sanjaidev

[Petitioners 2 and 3 are represented

by guardian 1^st petitioner]

4.Radhakrishnan

5.Vasuki

..Appellants

Vs.

Dr.Aslaam Yusuf

..Respondent

Prayer

: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of

Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent for contempt of Court for

disobedience of the order of this Court dated 10.09.2015 made in

CMA.No.2044 of 2015 on the file of this Court.

For Appellants

: Mr.S.Senthilnathan

Amicus Curiea

: Mr.M.B.Raghavan

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.No.1029 of 2018

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.)

The petitioner seeks to punish the respondent for contempt of

Court. The contempt alleged is non-payment of award amount granted in

MCOP.No.63 of 2010 under the award dated 14.09.2013 and confirmed

by this Court in CMA.No.2044 of 2015 by its order dated 10.09.2015.

2. It is clear to our mind that an award of the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal is an executable decree and hence the proceeding for

contempt will not lie. We are supported by following the judgments of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kapildeo Prasad Sah and others Vs.

State of Bihar and others reported in (1999) 7 SCC 569 and R.N.Dey

and others V. Bhagyabati Pramanik and others reported in (2000) 4

SCC 400 in our above conclusion.

3. Mr.S.Sentilnathan, learned counsel appearing for the

contempt petitioner would however submit that he was forced to file this

contempt because the Tribunal to which the award was transmitted by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvarur dismissed his execution

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.No.1029 of 2018

petition on the ground that it being a Small Causes Court it cannot

proceed against the immovable property in execution of the decree.

4. We must point out that such conclusion is wholly unjustified.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a creature of the statute and it has

got the power to recover the award amount from the insurer or the owner

of the vehicle, who is liable to pay the same as arrears of land revenue.

Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Tribunal Rules makes Order

XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the Tribunal and it

provides that the awards can be executed as if it were a decree for

payment of money passed by such Court in a civil suit. Therefore, the

Tribunal has got every power to execute the decree. The notion that being

a Small Causes Court, the Tribunals in Chennai cannot execute the

awards passed in motor accident claim cases by attaching immovable

properties is wholly incorrect.

5. Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the State

Government to constitute Tribunals by notification in the Government

Gazette. Merely because a Judge of the Small Causes Court is constituted

as a Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, it cannot be said that the

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.No.1029 of 2018

Tribunal will still be a Small Causes Court and it cannot proceed against

the immovable property in execution of a decree. The Small Causes

Court cannot proceed against the immovable property in execution of a

decree passed by it as a Small Causes Court, but when the decree is an

award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Section 174 read with Rule

22 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Tribunal Rules invests the power of

execution of a civil Court in a Tribunal. Therefore, it is clear to our mind

that the notion that it cannot proceed against the immovable property in

execution of a decree is incorrect. We hold that as a Tribunal it would be

entitled to proceed against the immovable property under Section 174 of

the Motor Vehicles Act r