SURENDER SINGH Vs. OMVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 9.8.2004 passed by the executing Court, namely, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') dismissing the objections raised by the judgment-debtor petitioners (for brevity, 'JD-petitioners') to the execution of award dated 7.6.1995. It is appropriate to mention that one Hanuman had died in a motor vehicle accident on 13.11.1991. His legal heirs and dependents filed a claim petition on 29.1.1992. The predecessor-in-interest of the JD-petitioners, namely, Bhagirath suffered a decree in favour of the JD-petitioners on 4.1.1992. The proceedings in the claim petition filed on 29.1.1992 culminated into award dated 7.6.1995 for an amount of Rs. 3,07,200/-. The Tribunal also awarded 12% interest from the date of petition till realisation. The execution proceedings were initiated on 16.1.2000 to which the present petitioners filed objections under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The objections have been partially accepted and the operative part of the order passed by the Tribunal reads as under :-

(2.) WHEN the petition came up for consideration on 26.5.2005, an adjournment was sought to seek instructions as to whether the JD-petitioners were prepared to deposit the whole awarded amount alongwith interest. However, it has been stated by the learned counsel that the JD-petitioners are not in a position to deposit the awarded amount alongwith interest with the executing Court. Therefore, learned counsel has made submissions on merits of the controversy.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. The executing Court has recorded a categorical finding that decree dated 4.1.1992 is liable to be ignored because Bhagirath had suffered the decree in favour of his sons with ulterior motive to avoid the payment of compensation. At that time, it was known to Bhagirath that Hanuman had died and the claim is likely to be made. It is not unknown that after the accident, negotiation takes place and intention of the other party becomes known. Therefore, there is no room to doubt the aforesaid finding. Moreover, the award is dated 7.6.1995 and the JD-petitioners have not paid even a penny to the claimant-respondents till date. The widow and the dependent children who have lost their bread earner are without any financial assistance which is furnished by the award. Therefore, I do not find any room for interference especially under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is well settled that this Court could interfere in case manifest injustice is caused to the party making the grievance before this Court.