MIRA ROY CHOWDHURY Vs. ARUP SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the Court was as follows : In the instant revisional application Order No. 147 dated 06.01.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Hooghly in Misc. Case No. 16 of 2005 arising out of Transfer Execution Case No. 01 of 1997 has been assailed. By such order learned Court below has disposed of an application dated 26.09.2005 filed by the judgment debtor questioning jurisdiction of the Court to execute a transferred award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 10th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in M.J.C. Case No. 162/87 followed by M.J.C. Execution Case No. 06 of 1995.

(2.) THE brief fact of this case is that one Dwijendra Nath Chowdhury instituted an accident claim case being M.J.C. No. 162 of 1987 before the 10th Bench of City Civil Court, Calcutta against Durga Sankar Sana and Uma Shankar Saha being owners of the offending vehicle and Oriental Insurance Company Limited. THE said case was decided with an award of Rs.70,000/- with cost of Rs.101/- on 28.07.1994 with interest at the rate of 15%. THE insurer paid Rs.15,000/- with interest in compliance with the order through Small Causes Court, Calcutta on 29.06.1998. THEn the decree holder filed Execution Case being M.J.C. Execution Case No. 06 of 1995 on 04.07.1995 and after his death on 23.01.1996 the present petitioners have been substituted on 24.06.1996. As the properties of judgment debtors i.e., owners of the offending vehicle situates within the jurisdiction of Serampore Police Station of Hooghly District, said Execution Case was transferred by order dated 10.10.1996 to the learned District Judge, Hooghly who by order dated 22.01.1997 has transferred the case to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2nd Court, Hooghly which is renumbered as Transfer Execution Case No. 1 of 1997.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order the instant application has been preferred by the decree holder/claimants. The learned Lawyer for the petitioners herein submits that the learned District Judge has transferred the decree for execution without considering true interpretation of Section 100F of the Motor Vehicles Act particularly the meaning of 'jurisdiction to entertain' which means "to receive and deliberate". It is further contended that in terms of Section 100F of the Motor Vehicles Act Civil Court jurisdiction has not been ousted rather the Claims Tribunal has been constituted for the purpose of discharging the same functions and duties in the same manner as a Civil Court is expected to do. Learned Court below has also failed to consider that execution case is maintainable and the award can be executed like a decree under Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code and the decree-holder /award-holder has a right to seek certificate under Section 110E corresponding to amended Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and he has the option to file the application to the Civil Court.