PRAG KAUR Vs. DEVI DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 and 5 are the widow and children of late Shri Balbir Singh, who died in a motor vehicle accident. The dependents of Balbir Singh aforesaid filed a claim petition under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') and finally the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') awarded a compensation of Rs. 55,000/- to the dependents against the owners of the vehicles vide award dated 31. 1. 1973. The case of the petitioners is that respondents Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Jee Kaur and Risal Singh are their close relations and petitioner No. l being the widow was always assured by the respondents that the compensation would be paid as and when it is required by her at the time of her necessity in order to look after the welfare and maintenance of her children. When the children of petitioner No. 1 became major and of marriageable age, she requested respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to pay the amount of compensation but they refused to pay the same.

(2.) ON that the petitioner filed an execution application before the Tribunal on 13. 1. 1988 for the realisation of the compensation. Along with the application she also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay. The said proceedings were contested by the respondents and finally the Tribunal vide order dated 30. 9. 1988 dismissed the execution application of the decree-holders/claimants on the ground that the application was barred by limitation and the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to such execution proceedings. Operative part of the order of the Tribunal is contained in paragraphs Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 thereof, which is reproduced below in order to appreciate the submissions raised by the petitioners in the present revisions petition in which directions have been sought for the quashment of the order dated 20. 9. 1988 (Annexure P1) passed by the Court of Additional District Judge (I), Rohtak, exercising the powers of the Tribunal and it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the order passed by the Tribunal (Annexure P1) is illegal on the ground that under Section 110e of the Act the Tribunal was bound to issue a certificate for the amount to the Collector so that the Collector could proceed to recover the same in the same manner, as arrears of land revenue and that the Tribunal has also erred in holding that the provisions of Section 5 of the Act are not applicable to such application for the realisation of the compensation : "2. Admittedly the award, the amount of which is sought to be recovered now through this execution application was passed or 31. 10. 1973 by Shri R. S. Gupta, the then Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak. It is clear from the execution application itself that before filing the present execution application on 13. 1. 88, no other execution application was filed by the petitioners-decree holders to recover the above mentioned amount of award. This shows that present execution application has been filed by the petitioners after the expiry of 12 years period from 31. 10. 1973, the date of award.

(3.) AS no execution application was filed by the petitioners within 12 years from 31. 10. 1973 and they have filed this execution application only after the expiry of 12 years period from 31. 10. 1973, the date of the award, so the effect of not filing execution application within time prescribed by Article 136 is to render the award inoperative and unenforceable after the expiry of 12 years period.