IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 716 of 2010 ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4/2/2010IN EA 86/09 IN EP 58/07 IN OPMV.643/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT/: 4TH CLAIM PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- NIRMALA NAIR, W/O.SASIKUMAR NAIR, D/O.KAMALAMMA PILLAI, MAYOORI BHAVAN, PLAMOOTTUKADA, ERICHALLOOR DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE, RESIDING AT CHATHAMPARA VEEDU, MUTTUKKADA P.O., ERICHALLOOR DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: DECREE HOLDERS 1-3/JUDGMENT DEBTOR/CLAIM PETITIONE ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. INDIRA DEVI THANKACHI, D/O.GOURI PILLAI, PADMASREE, PARASALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PADMAJA DEVI, D/O.INDIRA DEVI, -DO-. 3. KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O.THANKAPPAN NAIR, -DO-. 4. SUKUMARI AMMA, MAYOORI BHAVAN, PLAMOOTTUKADA P.O., ERICHALLOOR DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE. 5. SINDHULEKHA, D/O.SUKUMARI AMMA, RESIDING AT THECHAKKU VEEDU SRIVILASAM, PLAMOOTTUKADA, ERICHALLOOR DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE. 6. SURAJA KUMARI, D/O.SUKUMARI AMMA, MAYOORI BHAVAN, PLAMOOTTUKADA, ERICHALLOOR DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE. 7. SULABHA KUMARI, D/O.SUKUMARI AMMA, -DO-. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.M.S.KALESH FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.HARISH GOPINATH FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.V.VINAY MENON FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) FOR R1 TO 3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2011, ALONG WITH MACA NO. 701 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== M.A.C.A. NOS. 701 & 716 OF 2010 ============================ Dated this the 10th day of August 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT R.Basant, J. These appeals are preferred by claimants/appellants who had moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara to lift attachment of properties in execution of an award passed by the Tribunal. The parties are being referred to in this common judgment as they are ranked in M.A.C.A.No.701/2010. Respondent No.2 and her husband had filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the loss suffered by them as a result of the death of their son in a motor accident. The husband of the second respondent is no more and respondents 3 and 4 along with the second respondent have stepped into the shoes of the deceased husband/2nd respondent. The accident which gave rise to the cause of action took place on 24/3/1997. The claim petition was filed on 17/6/1997 and the Tribunal passed an award on 2/7/2001 directing payment of Rs.1,54,400/- along with interest and costs. MACA 701 & 716/2010 2 The 5th respondent herein, the owner of the vehicle, was directed to pay that amount along with interest from 17/6/1997, i.e. the date of the claim. It was found that there was no valid policy of insurance to cover liability of the 5th respondent . 2. E.P.No.58/2007 was filed for execution of the said award. Four items of properties were sought to be attached and it is submitted at the Bar by the learned counsel for the decree holder/2nd respondent that order of attachment was passed over all the four items of properties. We are not actually concerned in these appeals with items 2 and 3 over which attachment was effected. The claimants - 4 in number, i.e. the appellants and the first respondent staked claims over the said items 1 and 4 attached by the court in execution of the award. According to them, they have rights over the properties in question. Their claims were considered by the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the prayer in the claim petition is not properly framed. To come to that conclusion, the Tribunal specifically noted that the precise property over which the claimants were asserting right, title and interest was not clearly described . On that ground and for that reason, the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned order MACA 701 & 716/2010 3 holding that the claim petition is not properly framed. The frame of the claim petition is bad in law. Hence, the Tribunal did not consider the other issues and proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the claim petition. 3. The appellants assail the impugned order. After detailed discussions at the Bar, it is agreed between the counsel that these appeals can now be dismissed making it clear that the dismissal of their claim petition and these appeals will not in any way fetter their rights to raise objections at the appropriate stage later -i.e. at the stage of sale in execution. 4. We are satisfied that the impugned order does not warrant interference. We find merit in the contention that the claim petition was not properly framed - in that the specific items over which the claim petitioners/appellants claim rights were not specifically revealed in the claim petition. For that reason, we concur with the conclusion of the court below that the execution application i.e. the claim petition was not properly framed. We uphold the impugned order. 5. In the result, a)these appeals are dismissed as agreed. MACA 701 & 716/2010 4 b)We make it clear that these appeals are being dismissed accepting the specific submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants must be given and shall be entitled for opportunity to raise all their objections at appropriate later stage - when the court proceeds to effect sale in execution of the impugned award of the attached properties. They shall be entitled at that stage to show that they have (and the judgment debtor does not have) right, title and interest in the properties which is proposed to be sold in execution. Sd/- R.BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE MACA 701 & 716/2010 5