HE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
C.R.P.No.6740 OF 2017
ORDER:
This civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated 03.11.2017 in E.P.No.2 of 2016 in M.V.O.P.No.1141 of 2002, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge-cum- VII-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the execution petition filed by the revision petitioners/decree holders under Order XXI Rule 43 and Order XXI Rule 64 CPC against respondent No.2/judgment debtor No.2 for attachment of moveable property in realization of the decretal amount, was dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.
3. The revision petitioners/decree holders filed execution petition under Order XXI Rule 43 and Order XXI Rule 64 CPC against respondent No.2/judgment debtor No.2 for attachment of moveable property in realization of the decretal amount. Respondent No.2/insurer resisted the said petition stating that as per orders of this Court in M.A.C.M.A.No.1389 of 2006, the insurer 2 deposited a cheque bearing No.458656 dated 12.03.2015 for a sum of Rs.13,10,885/- being 75% of the amount awarded by this Court, including interest, after deducting a sum of Rs.1,41,284/- towards TDS. In view of the same, JDr.No.2 is not liable to pay the amount of Rs.8,00,251/- as claimed in the EP and that JDr.No.2 has already deposited the sum of Rs.13,10,385/- plus Rs.65,914/- and the decree holder cannot claim further amount which is against the judgment passed by this Court. On a consideration of the material on record, the trial Court, by the impugned order dated 03.11.2017, dismissed the execution petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court committed error in dismissing the execution petition, as the final order passed by this Court in M.A.C.M.A.No.1389 of 2006 directed the respondents to pay the enhanced compensation amount from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.10,61,000/-. This Court has not given any finding on apportionment of compensation between the lorry driver and the deceased at 75% and 25%. Therefore, learned counsel prayed to set aside the impugned order.
3
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2, while supporting the impugned order, submits that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the judgment of this Court whereunder negligence was apportioned between the lorry driver and the deceased at 75% and 25% and they have complied with the orders of this Court. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the execution petition and needs no interference.
6. A perusal of the record would disclose that the revision petitioners filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1389 of 2006 against the order and decree dated 24.03.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.1141 of 2002, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The said appeal was disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 20.10.2014. In the said appeal, this Court framed the following points for consideration:
i. Whether the deceased alone was negligent or whether the lorry driver was also negligent?
ii. What is the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled to?4
7. On point No.1, this Court held that negligence has to be apportioned between the lorry driver and the deceased at 75% and 25%. While disposing of the appeal, this Court passed the following order:
"Accordingly, the MACMA is allowed enhancing compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.10,61,000/-. The same shall be apportioned to the claimants equally. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. However, in the circumstances, no costs.
8. Though this Court has not specifically observed in the operative portion of the judgment that the compensation amount has to be apportioned between the lorry driver and the deceased at 75% and 25%, it appears that respondent No.2 had rightly deposited the sum of Rs.13,10,885/- being 75% of the amount awarded by this Court, including interest, after deducting a sum of Rs.1,41,284/- towards TDS.
9. The trial Court had rightly appreciated the finding of this Court on point No.1 stated above and had rightly held that respondent No.2 had complied with the judgment and decree of this Court by depositing 75% of the liability and, therefore, the claim of 5 petitioners for 100% compensation on Rs.10,61,000/- is not maintainable and the EP was rightly dismissed.
10. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the trial Court had not committed any error and there is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned order. Respondent No.2 had rightly deposited the compensation amount being 75% of the awarded amount and the contention of the revision petitioners that 100% of the compensation amount awarded in the said appeal has to be paid by respondent No.2, is not tenable.
11. In the result, civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 10.03.2023 Lrkm