RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

                       Pushpa Mishra

                       Vs.

                       MACT

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1800 of 2004
          (Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.)

                       29.03.2004

                       JUDGMENT

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.

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
Civil Procedure Code was forwarded to District Collector Jaipur under Section 174 of
the Motor Vehicles Act for the recovery.

2. Mr. AkhilSimlote, 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 Civil Procedure Code 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. SarmaniyaBai and others v. Madhya Pradesh RajyaParivahan Nigam, 1and
HirabhaiNanubhai Desai v. State of Gujarat and Ors.,2

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 Civil Procedure Code as applicable to
execution of orders and decrees passed by a Civil Court Full Bench of Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Smt. SarmaniyaBai v. Madhya Pradesh RajyaParivahan Nigam
(supra), indicated thus : (Para 23)
       "We are of the view that the Claims Tribunal possesses inherent jurisdiction to
       enforce its own award in accordance also with the provisions of Civil Procedure
       Code as applicable to execution or orders and decree passed by a Civil Court."

4. Learned court below did not properly appreciate Rule 10, 28 of the Rajasthan Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1990 and drag the claimants to the office of the District Collector to
follow a complicated and lengthy procedure. When the Claims Tribunal possesses
inherent jurisdiction to enforce its own award, the claimants could not be asked to
follow another procedure.

5. For these reasons I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated
March 16, 2004, I remit the case to learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City to execute the award under Order 21,
Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code.

Petition allowed.

Cases Referred.

1. AIR 1990 MP 306 (FB)
2. AIR 1991 Guj 1