Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhura vs Manohar Singh And Ors. on 19 September, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2008ACJ653
Author: A.M. Sapre
Bench: A.M. Sapre
JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J.
1. Mr. R.C. Chhazed, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission as also finally because looking to the nature of controversy it is not necessary to hear any of the respondents.
2. This revision is filed by the claimant under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, challenging the order dated 15.5.2006 passed by Second Additional M.A.C.T., Mhow in Claim Case No. 15 of 1997. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need to be mentioned in brief.
3. Claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident being Claim Case No. 15 of 1997. By award dated 25.7.2000, the learned Member of the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,58,250 together with interest payable on the said amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum to the claimant. This award was challenged by the claimants by filing an appeal before this Court being M.A. No. 1251 of 2000. By order dated 21.10.2005, this Court allowed the appeal in part and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,80,000 in place of Rs. 1,58,250. In other words, the compensation was enhanced by this Court by sum of Rs. 1,21,250 to carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.
4. This award was put into execution by the claimants. By impugned order the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal virtually modified the award passed by this Court and directed that some portion of the award be invested in F.D.R. in the bank, etc. It is against this order, the claimant is in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Submission of learned Counsel for petitioner was that the executing court had no jurisdiction to modify the award passed by this Court by imposing certain conditions which were not imposed by this Court while deciding the appeal by order dated 21.10.2005. In other words, the submission was that such a direction could be passed, if at all, in the first instance either by the Claims Tribunal while deciding the main claim case or by this Court while deciding the appeal filed by the claimant. The executing court according to learned Counsel while executing the award was acting as an executing court and hence could not have modified the award as it amounted to going behind the award which the executing court did not have the power to do.
6. I am inclined to accept this submission. In my view, there was neither any occasion nor scope nor jurisdiction available to the executing court to modify the award passed by this Court by imposing certain directions including that of the one relating to deposit of awarded sum in the bank, etc. This direction in my humble view could at best be either by the Claims Tribunal while deciding the main case or by this Court while passing the order in appeal dated 21.10.2005 filed by the claimants.
It is a settled rule of law that the executing court has to execute the award as it is and it can neither modify any terms of the award in execution nor can go behind the award.
7. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am constrained to allow this revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated 15.5.2006 passed in execution of Claim Case No. 15 of 1997 by Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mhow as an executing court.
C.C. as per rules