NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 05.05.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, whereby the objections filed by the appellant-J.D No. 1 were dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that vide Award dated 04.10.2008 passed in MACT Case No. 100 of 2008, the claim petition filed by Maha Singh decree-holder/claimant was partly allowed and a sum of Rs. 23,592/- was awarded as compensation to the decree-holder/claimant which was liable to be paid by the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle as the said vehicle was not insured. The judgment-debtors failed to pay the awarded amount, therefore, the decree holder/claimant filed the execution petition.
Due opportunity was afforded to the appellant-judgment debtor(s)/objector to make the payment of the awarded amount, but he failed to do so and as such, warrant of attachment of the property of the appellant-objector was issued and the same was duly executed. The appellant-objector filed objections, inter alia, on the grounds that at the time of deciding the claim petition, the stand of the appellant-objector that he was not registered owner of the offending vehicle was not considered and despite there being no evidence in that regard, award was passed in favour of the claimant and against the appellant-objector. He also alleged that he had already paid 50% of the awarded amount in the connected claim petition and as such, he was ready to deposit 50% of the awarded amount without interest in the case in hand also. On the above grounds, the appellant-objector prayed for dismissal of the execution petition.
The claimant-decree holder took the stand that objections were frivolous. Since no appeal etc. was filed against the award dated 04.10.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, the appellant-objector had no right to challenge the findings before the Executing Court.
After hearing both the sides, learned Executing Court dismissed the objection and hence, the present appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the material available on record.
The award against the objector-appellant was passed on 04.10.2008 The said award was never challenged by way of appeal and as such, the same had attained finality, therefore, the objection of the appellant-objector that his defence was not properly considered while passing the award was not tenable before the Executing Court. The contention of the appellant-objector that he was ready to deposit 50% of the awarded amount is also baseless. The appellant-objector is liable to satisfy the execution petition with regard to whole of the awarded amount since the award was to be satisfied jointly and severally. The appellant-objector could not urge that he was liable to pay 50% of the awarded amount only. It is apposite to mention here that the appellant-objector had also filed a Civil Revision No. 2251 of 2012 before this Court challenging the order dated 24.03.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, holding the appellant-objector jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of award and the said civil revision was dismissed vide order dated 18.04.2012 (Annexure P-4).
Keeping in view the fact that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, has recorded good grounds for dismissal of the objection filed by the appellant-objector, therefore, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.