Madras High Court
Indumathi vs Dr.Aslaam Yusuf on 4 August, 2023
Cont.P.No.1029 of 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Contempt Petition No.1029 of 2018
1.Indumathi
2.Minor Ajaidevan
3.Minor Sanjaidev
[Petitioners 2 and 3 are represented
by guardian 1st petitioner]
4.Radhakrishnan
5.Vasuki ..Appellants
Vs.
Dr.Aslaam Yusuf ..Respondent
Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent for contempt of Court for
disobedience of the order of this Court dated 10.09.2015 made in
CMA.No.2044 of 2015 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Senthilnathan
Amicus Curiea : Mr.M.B.Raghavan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Cont.P.No.1029 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.)
The petitioner seeks to punish the respondent for contempt of
Court. The contempt alleged is non-payment of award amount granted in
MCOP.No.63 of 2010 under the award dated 14.09.2013 and confirmed
by this Court in CMA.No.2044 of 2015 by its order dated 10.09.2015.
2. It is clear to our mind that an award of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal is an executable decree and hence the proceeding for
contempt will not lie. We are supported by following the judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kapildeo Prasad Sah and others Vs. State
of Bihar and others reported in (1999) 7 SCC 569 and R.N.Dey and
others V. Bhagyabati Pramanik and others reported in (2000) 4 SCC
400 in our above conclusion.
3. Mr.S.Sentilnathan, learned counsel appearing for the
contempt petitioner would however submit that he was forced to file this
contempt because the Tribunal to which the award was transmitted by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvarur dismissed his execution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1029 of 2018
petition on the ground that it being a Small Causes Court it cannot
proceed against the immovable property in execution of the decree.
4. We must point out that such conclusion is wholly
unjustified. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a creature of the
statute and it has got the power to recover the award amount from the
insurer or the owner of the vehicle, who is liable to pay the same as
arrears of land revenue. Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle
Tribunal Rules makes Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure
applicable to the Tribunal and it provides that the awards can be executed
as if it were a decree for payment of money passed by such Court in a
civil suit. Therefore, the Tribunal has got every power to execute the
decree. The notion that being a Small Causes Court, the Tribunals in
Chennai cannot execute the awards passed in motor accident claim cases
by attaching immovable properties is wholly incorrect.
5. Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the State
Government to constitute Tribunals by notification in the Government
Gazette. Merely because a Judge of the Small Causes Court is
constituted as a Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, it cannot be said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1029 of 2018
that the Tribunal will still be a Small Causes Court and it cannot proceed
against the immovable property in execution of a decree. The Small
Causes Court cannot proceed against the immovable property in
execution of a decree passed by it as a Small Causes Court, but when the
decree is an award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Section 174
read with Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Tribunal Rules
invests the power of execution of a civil Court in a Tribunal. Therefore,
it is clear to our mind that the notion that it cannot proceed against the
immovable property in execution of a decree is incorrect. We hold that
as a Tribunal it would be entitled to proceed against the immovable
property under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 22
of the Tamil Naud Motor Vehicles Tribunal Rules.
6. We also make it clear that merely because the Small Causes
Court is designated as Tribunal it will not be denuded of the powers
conferred on it under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules. We remind
the Small Causes Court that when it functions as a Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, it functions as a statutory Tribunal under the Motor
Vehicles Act which itself is a self contained Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1029 of 2018
7. Mr.S.Senthilnathan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that he has filed a fresh execution petition in
E.P.Sr.No.5740 of 2023 on 21.07.2023. The Tribunal is directed to
number the same forthwith proceed under Order21 of the Civil Procedure
Code. It shall dispose of the said execution petition within a period of six
(6) months from the date of its numbering.
8. The contempt petition is dismissed.
9. We place on record our appreciation for the assistance
rendered by Mr.M.B.Raghavan, learned counsel appointed as Amicus
Curiae.
(R.S.M.,J.) (V.L.N.,J.)
04.08.2023
dsa
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Speaking order/ Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1029 of 2018
R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
dsa
Contempt Petition No.1029 of 2018
04.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
