RATNABHAI RAVATABHAI MEGHWAL Vs. HAKMAJI SAMTAJI HARIJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Considering the peculiar issue raised, all the matters are taken up for final disposal forthwith.

(2.) Mr. Dharm Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in all these matters, the applications have been filed challenging the orders passed by the MACT (Aux), Tharad at Banaskantha dtd. 24/8/2023 in MACEX nos. 06/2021, 07/2021, 08/2021 and 09/2021, where the Tribunal has rejected the prayer of the claimants to join legal heirs of the owner of the vehicle in execution petition, where the award was passed on 19/11/2009 in MACP nos.511/1993, 512/1993, 1002/1994, 1171/1994 wherein the driver-Hakmaji Samtaji was deleted from the cause title and the proceedings continued against Kubhaji Vastaji Venajiya and the United India Insurance Company Ltd. Advocate Mr. Raval submitted that the claimants could not have the fruits of the judgment and award since the insurance company came to be exonerated and no order for pay and recover was made and thus, the claimants had no option, but to proceed against the owner for the recovery of the amount. Advocate Mr. Raval submitted that the execution petition was filed and during that process, by way of Bailiff report, it came to the knowledge of the claimant that Kubhaji Vastaji Venajiya died on 24/5/1996. Advocate Mr. Raval stated that during the trial proceedings, driver came to be deleted while the owner of the vehicle, the deceased with a view to avoid the proceedings, though duly served, had not appeared before the Tribunal and hence, submitted that there was no means to verify about the owner since he was not represented by any advocate on record.

(3.) Advocate Mr. Raval stated that as soon as the Bailiff report came to the knowledge of the claimants, the application was moved before the Executing Court which was before MACT (Aux) for substituting the legal heirs of Kubhaji Vastaji Venajiya. Advocate Mr. Raval submitted that the application came to be rejected observing that the deceased had died during pendency of the proceedings and hence, the award or decree cannot be passed against the dead person and the award being non-est, it cannot be executed.