PURSHOTTAM CHAND Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition whereby he has assailed the order dated 8.7.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge -I (M.A.C.T. -II), Kangra at Dharamshala in Execution Petition No. 2 -D of 2006 under Order 21 Rule 11A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') read with Section 151 of the Code, filed by the Respondent -Company.

(2.) MATERIAL facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that an accident was caused by the Petitioner on 9.11.2001. Claimant, Shri Ravi Kumar was injured. He remained under treatment for about three days and was also operated upon. He filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -II, Kangra at Dharamshala bearing No. 58 -K/2002 on 24.10.2002. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the basis of the evidence led by the parties found that the accident, in which the claimant was injured, was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving by the Petitioner. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has taken into consideration the statements of claimant as P.W. 2, P.W. 4, Dr. Kalpana Negi and P.W. 5, Ashwani Kumar, eye witness. In this case the F.I.R. Ex. P.W. 1/A was also taken into consideration. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had allowed the claim petition and a sum of Rs. 63,699/ - was awarded as compensation in favour of the claimant. The sum of awarded amount was directed to be deposited with interest @ 7% per annum till the date of its realization or deposit. Respondent -Company was directed to pay the awarded amount of compensation at the first instance with interest and later on the Company could recover the same from the Petitioner in accordance with law. The Respondent -Company filed an execution petition, as noticed above, under Order 21 Rule 11A, read with Section 151 of the Code before the learned Additional District Judge -I (MACT -II), Kangra at Dharamshala. The application was filed on 9.9.2008. The learned Additional District Judge has recorded a finding that the Petitioner was avoiding the payment of amount to the Respondent -Company and has also mortgaged his property after the award was made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It is in these circumstances that order dated 8.7.2010 was passed by the learned Court below. There is neither any illegality nor any procedural irregularity in the order dated 8.7.2010. The learned Court below has correctly appreciated the facts and law while passing the order dated 8.7.2010. The plea taken by the Petitioner that he belongs to Untodaya Family and remained in hospital and has to look after the old mother, are not sufficient grounds to avoid execution of the decree. He has remained in hospital as per Annexure P -2 only from 12th September, 2006 to 21st September, 2006. The certificate, Annexure P -3 appears to have been issued only in the year 2006, meaning thereby that he had sufficient funds before the issuance of Annexure P -3.