Bombay High Court
Smt. Rupinder Kaur W/O Sukhjinder Singh ... vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., ... on 20 June, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:5697
1 wp198.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.198/2024
Smt. Rupinder Kaur W/o Sukhjinder
Singh Ghotra, aged about 48 Yrs.,
Occu. Business, R/o Plot No.184,
Near Gurudwara, Baba Budhaji Nagar,
Teka Naka, Nagpur, Tq. and Distt.
Nagpur. ... Petitioner
(Ori. J.D. on R.A.)
- Versus -
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
through its Divisional Manager,
T.P. Hub Incharge "Shukla Bhawan",
W.H.C. Road, Dharampeth, Nagpur,
Tq. and Distt. Nagpur. ... Respondent
(Ori.D.H. on R.A.)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.199/2024
Smt. Rupinder Kaur W/o Sukhjinder
Singh Ghotra, aged about 48 Yrs.,
Occu. Business, R/o Plot No.184,
Near Gurudwara, Baba Budhaji Nagar,
Teka Naka, Nagpur, Tq. and Distt.
Nagpur. ... Petitioner
(Ori. J.D. on R.A.)
- Versus -
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
through its Divisional Manager,
T.P. Hub Incharge "Shukla Bhawan",
W.H.C. Road, Dharampeth, Nagpur,
Tq. and Distt. Nagpur. ... Respondent
(Ori.D.H. on R.A.)
2 wp198.2024
-----------------
Mr. S.A. Mohta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Limaye, Advocate for the respondent.
..(in both matters)
----------------
CORAM: MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 10.6.2025.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 20.6.2025.
COMMON JUDGMENT
As both these petitions are arising out of same
accident and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Nagpur has
passed a common award in both the petitions, they are decided by
the common judgment.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of learned Advocates for the parties.
3. The petitioner in both the petitions is the owner of
the vehicles. The award is passed against the owner of the
vehicles ex parte.
3 wp198.2024
4. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.198/2024 has
challenged the orders passed below Exh.35 dated 13.9.2023 and
below Exh.42 dated 18.9.2023 by the Member, Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-1, Nagpur in R.D. No.211/2025. The petitioner
in Writ Petition No.199/2024 has challenged the order below
Exh.33 dated 18.9.2023 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-1, Nagpur in R.D. No.212/2025. The petitioner
in both the petitions is the owner of the offending vehicle bearing
registration Nos.CG-04/G-7817 and CG-04/G-7817 respectively.
5. Learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-1, Nagpur partly allowed the claim petitions and held
that the petitioners and the respondents are jointly and severally
liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- in Claim Petition
No.1115/2005 and Rs.7,68,400/- in Claim Petition
No.1114/2005 to the claimants who are the son and daughter of
the deceased. The Tribunal has also directed the respondent to
deposit the compensation amount and after depositing the
4 wp198.2024
amount, the respondent is entitled to recover the same from the
petitioners with interest at the rate of 7.5.% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petitions till its realization.
6. The respondent i.e. Insurance Company has
challenged the award passed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition
Nos.1115/2005 and 1114/2005 in First Appeal Nos.517/2011 and
636/2011. Both the appeals were dismissed by this Court and
said orders were challenged in Special Leave to Appeal (C)
Nos.20485-20486/2013 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The
said Special Leave to Appeal were also dismissed with liberty to
the respondent Insurance Company to proceed against the owners
of the vehicles for the recovery of the amount.
7. The respondent Insurance Company has filed the
execution proceedings bearing Regular Darkhast Nos.211/2015
and 212/2015 which are pending on the file of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-I, Nagpur. The petitioner in both the petitions
5 wp198.2024
also filed the appeals challenging the award and order of
Accidents Claims Tribunal along with applications for
condonation of delay which were rejected up to Hon'ble Apex
Court.
8. The petitioner has filed an objection under Section 47
of the Code of Civil Procedure at Exh.35 and 33 in execution
proceedings along with an application for grant of permission to
issue witness summons to the Road Transport Officer, Nagpur at
Exh.36. The Tribunal has rejected the objections as the
application is not maintainable under Section 47 of the Code of
Civil Procedure but the Tribunal has allowed the application at
Exh.42 filed by the respondent for recalling of order of issue of
summons. Hence the petitioners have challenged the orders
passed in both the claim petitions.
9. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has stated
that the objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil
6 wp198.2024
Procedure is maintainable as the Code of Civil Procedure is an
independent Code and it provides an opportunity to the
judgment debtor to raise grievance or objection in the execution
proceedings itself.
10. The petitioner in both the petitions is proceeded ex
parte before the Tribunal and was unsuccessful in this Court and
the Hon'ble Apex Court also in challenging the orders of the
Tribunal. The applications for condonation of delay itself were
not allowed in both the Courts. The decree holder i.e. the
Oriental Insurance Company who is the respondent in these
petitions has also challenged the award before this Court which
was dismissed and before the Hon'ble Apex Court the Special
Leave Petitions filed by the respondents were also dismissed.
Thereafter, the judgment debtors have filed the execution
proceedings and it appears from the record that the petitioners
tried to challenge the award passed by the Tribunal by way of
applications under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure by
7 wp198.2024
raising objections. It is, therefore, necessary to decide whether the
objections before the execution Court raised by the petitioners are
maintainable?
11. On perusal of the orders passed by the trial Court it
appears that the trial Court has considered all the provisions of
Section 169 and Rules 275 and 276 of the Motor Vehicles Act
and has rightly observed that Section 47 of Code of Civil
Procedure will not be attracted under the Motor Vehicles Act
while entertaining execution proceedings by Claims Tribunal. As
Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is an independent
remedy and it does not find place either in Section 169 of the
Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules framed thereunder, therefore, the
objections/applications raised by the petitioners cannot be
entertained and were rightly rejected.
12. Moreover, by way of objections the petitioners have
challenged the award which issue is already decided by the
8 wp198.2024
Hon'ble Apex Court. The award has attained finality and,
therefore, there is no question of raising any objection that the
respondent has filed forged documents of the licence and reopen
the claim. As I agree with the observations made by the trial
Court, interference at the hands of this Court is not warranted.
Hence, writ petitions stand dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Rule discharged.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/06/2025 17:46:49
