DARSHAN SINGH ATMA SINGH Vs. KHEELU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding certain amount against the driver of the motor-cycle in an award made under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act No. 4 of 1939) -- (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) AN application was made by the person who was injured In the accident to recover the amount allowed to him under the Award before the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Kapurthala. An objection was taken to this application by the driver of the motor-cycle, against whom the award had been made, that the award could not be executed; and in support of this objection, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Madras High Court in K. Gopala Krishnan v. Sankara Narayan, air 1968 Mad 436. This objection was overruled by the Tribunal on the short ground that the State Government had amended Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), whereby in Rule 20 of these rules, Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been added. The result of the amendment, therefore, according to the Tribunal, was that the award could be executed against the appellant. Against this decision, the present appeal has been preferred by Darshan Singh, the driver of the motorcycle.

(3.) THE principal contention of Mr. Yash Paul Gandhi, learned counsel for Darshan singh, is that no doubt the Claims Tribunal could have given an award against darshan Singh, there is no machinery provided in the Act or the Rules for the execution of that award. His further contention is that Order 21 of the Code of Civil procedure only applies to decrees and the award is not a decree. Therefore, the introduction of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Rule 20 of the Rules will be of no consequence and the position will remain as it prevailed before the amendment of Rule 20. It is undoubtedly true that before the amendment of Rule 20, it had been held by the Madras High Court in K. Gopala Krishnan's case, AIR 1968 Mad 436 that such an award against the person other than the Insurance company would be inexecutable. But the question arises, whether such an award, after the amendment of Rule 20, can be executed or not? In order to determine this question, it will be necessary to refer to Sections 110-F and 111-A, which are in these terms:--