PRABA DEVI Vs. BHOOP SINGH AND RAGHVINDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 115 C.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 23.1.1991 passed by the learned 8th Additional District Judge, Agra. Facts giving rise to this revision are that an award dated 21.8.1987 was passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Agra in favour of Bhoop Singh, opposite party no. 1, and against Raghvendra Singh, opposite party no. 2 of this revision. By the aforesaid award Rs. 96,000/- have been awarded as damages in favour of opposite party Bhoop Singh. The Tribunal issued a recovery certificate on 10.2.1989 which was sent to collector, Agra for realisation of the amount. Collector, Agra in pursuance of the recovery certificate issued by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, proceeded with the recovery of the amount and attached House No. 5/6-A., situated in Marhia Katra, Agra. Present revisionist Smt. Prabha Devi filed an application under Section 151 CPC before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Agra and claimed therein that she purchased the house from judgment debtor Reghvendra Singh, vide sale deed dated 17.3.1989 for a consideration of Rs. 1,15,000/-. It has also been stated that this sale deed has been executed in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 20.4.1987 which was executed in her favour by mother of the judgment debtor Raghvendra Singh. The applicant prayed that she is a bona fide purchaser of the house in dispute and it could not be attached in recovery proceedings against opposite party No. 2. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties rejected this application vide order dated 23.1.1991. It is not necessary for decision of the present revision to refer to the findings recorded by the learned Judge; as in my opinion the entire proceedings, against attachment before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, were misconceived and not maintainable in law. Under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act 1939 claims arising out of motor accidents could be entertained by the Tribunal under Section 100-A of the Act. The procedure has been prescribed for the same in Sections 110-B, 110-C, 110-CC and 110-CCC Under Section 110-D appeals against the award of the Tribunal have been provided which could be preferred before High Court. Section 110-E provides provision for recovery of money which reads as under: -

(2.) Perusal of the aforesaid Section 110-E makes it clear that the Tribunal could only issue a certificate for the amount to the Collector and the Collector is to recover the same in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. There is no other provision in the Act under which the Tribunal could entertain an objection or an application under Section 151 against attachment of the property in proceedings taken by the Collector for recovery of the amount on the basis of the certificate. Similarly in U.P. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1967, there is no provision for entertaining an objection or application by a third party challenging attachment by the Collector. As there is no provision authorising the Tribunal to entertain such an objection or application, the entire exercise before the Claims Tribunal was wholly misconceived. Unfortunately, this point was not raised before the learned Tribunal.

(3.) Dr. Cyan Prakash, learned Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that as the Tribunal has issued the certificate it has an implied power to withdraw the certificate and if the authority which could be convicted by the applicant that her house has been illegally attached in proceedings under the certificate, the learned Tribunal, could withdraw the certificate and for exercising his power of withdrawing the certificate, the application of the petitioner could be entertained. However, I am unable to accept the submissions made by the petitioner. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as provided in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is a Tribunal with limited powers. The legislature by its collective wisdom did not think it proper to invest the Tribunal with power to execute the award. Probably the reason for not giving their power to the Tribunal was to avoid delay in realisation of the amount of damages which is urgently needed by the dependants of the deceased. So far the power to withdraw the certificate is concerned, it can be exercised only in certain circumstances. The withdrawal of the certificate may become necessary where some correction has been done by the Tribunal in its award or the award has been satisfied by payment of money to the claimants. It is only in such circumstances that the Tribunal could withdraw the certificate issued by it under Section 110-E. It cannot be said that the Tribunal could exercise authority to adjudicate the title or question if possession and for withdrawing the recovery certificate. The Motor Accident Act, 1988 has come in force from 1.7.1988. Even in the new Act position is the same. Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contains identical provision.