Nirmala Kumari and Others vs Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Others

N. Mittal, J

CM No.31937-CII of 2010

Allowed as prayed for.

Main Case.

Petitioners filed claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of Surinder Paswan caused in a

Motor Vehicular Accident. Claimants are widow and both parents of the deceased. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mohali vide award

dated 06.08.2010 Annexure P-1 allowed the said claim petition, awarding Rs. 4,33,000/-as compensation to the claimants/Petitioners. The

Petitioners filed execution petition. The compensation amount stood deposited. Learned Claims Tribunal vide impugned order dated 26.10.2010

Annexure P-2 ordered release of the compensation amount to the Petitioners in terms of award Annexure P-1, but on furnishing of surety bond in

double of the awarded amount by the claimants to compensate the better claimants if found in future. Aggrieved by this condition of furnishing

surety bond, Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing instant revision petition to

challenge order Annexure P-2 passed by the Claims Tribunal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and perused the case file.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that no condition of furnishing surety bond was imposed in award Annexure P-1 and, therefore,

the executing Court while passing order Annexure P-2 could not impose any such condition of furnishing surety bond. There is considerable force

in the contention. Award Annexure P-1 was passed by the Claims Tribunal granting compensation to the Petitioners. There is no condition in the

said award that compensation shall be released to the Petitioners on furnishing of any surety bond. Consequently, the Claims Tribunal while

executing the said award could not have imposed any such condition. Even otherwise, the said condition imposed by the Tribunal is patently illegal

and perverse and without any justification. The claimants belong to Jharkhand and it is almost impossible for them to furnish some solvent surety in

Mohali (Punjab) for double the compensation amount. Moreover, there is nothing on record to even remotely infer that there is any other better

claimant to claim compensation for the death of the deceased. Widow and both parents of the deceased have filed the claim petition. If the

deceased had any issue, he would also have been impleaded as claimant when widow of the deceased is one of the claimants. Be that as it may,

there is no justification for imposing the condition of furnishing surety bond by the Petitioners for release of the compensation amount to them.

Impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error as the Claims Tribunal as executing Court had no jurisdiction to impose any such condition.

For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order Annexure P-2 of the Claims Tribunal is modified by

deleting the condition of furnishing of surety bond by the Petitioners. In other words, compensation amount shall be released to the

claimants/Petitioners without furnishing of any surety bond.