PUSHPA MISHRA Vs. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimant-petitioners seek to quash the order dated March 16, 2004 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City whereby the execution application filed by petitioners under Order 21, Rule 11, CPC was forwarded to District Collector Jaipur under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the recovery.

(2.) Mr. Akhil Simlote, learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is treated to be a decree of Civil Court and the application under Order 21, Rule 11, CPC is maintainable since the said provisions are made applicable by virtue of Rule 10.28 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990. In support of the contention learned counsel placed reliance on Smt. Sarmaniya Bai v. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Parivahan Nigam, AIR 1990 MP 306 (FB) and Hirabtiai Nanubhai Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 Guj 1.

(3.) Having brooded over the submissions, I find that the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal to enforce its award is not limited to only one method, namely issuance of certificate to the Collector for recovery of the amount due under the award as arrears of Land Revenue. The Tribunal possesses inherent jurisdiction to enforce its own award in accordance also with the provisions of CPC as applicable to execution of orders and decree passed by a Civil Court. Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Sarmaniya Bai v. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Parivahan Nigam (supra), indicated thus : (Para 23)