1 | P a g e Serial No. 39 Regular Cause List. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 423/2024 CM(6986/2024). ABDUL RASHID MIR (SENIOR CITIZEN). …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Z.A. Qureshi, Sr Advocate with Ms. Rehana, Advocate. VERSUS DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS. Through: Mr. Aatir Kawoosa, Advocate. …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 13.05.2025 01. The petitioner through the medium of the present petition has challenged Order dated 07.10.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Baramulla whereby the petitioner has been directed to file an affidavit indicating therein as to whether or not he has purchased the offending vehicle from its original owner. It has been further provided in the impugned order that in case the affidavit is not filed, the petitioner shall deposit the awarded sum along with interest with the Tribunal failing which his assets would be attached in accordance with the provisions contained in Order 21 Rule 41 of the CPC. 02. Heard and considered. 03. It appears that the claim petition came to be filed by the dependents of the deceased Mohammad Maqbool Trunkharoo before the Motor Accident 2 | P a g e Claims Tribunal, Baramulla claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased in a road accident involving vehicle bearing No. 3797/JK01D. The petitioner herein was impleaded as respondent to the said petition in his capacity as owner of the offending vehicle. It appears that the award dated 25.10.2013 came to be passed by the Tribunal whereby the claimants were found entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,36,000/- which was to be payable by respondent No.1- Insurance Company along with interest @ 7% with additional simple interest of 10% per annum in case of default in realization of the amount within a period of two months of passing of the impugned order. 04. It appears that the aforesaid award came to be challenged by respondent No.1-Insurance Company by way of an appeal before this Court in CMAM No. 23/2014 which came to be decided by this Court vide Order dated 09.11.2016. In para No.2 of the judgment passed by this Court, it was observed that because driver of the offending vehicle had deposed that he was not having a driving licence to drive a passenger Bus on the relevant date, as such, the Insurance Company has right of recovery of the awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle. However, in the operative portion of the aforesaid judgement, the appeal was allowed only to the extent of direction regarding payment of 10% default interest and there was no direction in the operative portion of the judgement with regard to the right of recovery from the owner of the vehicle. 05. It appears that respondent No-1-Insurance Company filed an Execution petition before the learned Tribunal after satisfying the award passed by the Tribunal as upheld by this Court in appeal. In the execution petition, the 3 | P a g e Insurance Company sought recovery of awarded sum from the petitioner herein in his capacity as Registered owner. Presumably it was done by respondent No.1-Insurance Company on account of the aforesaid observations made by this Court in Para No.2 of the judgement dated 09.11.2016. 06. Admittedly there was no direction in the operative portion of the judgement dated 09.11.2016 passed in CMAM No. 23/2014 with regard to the recovery of the awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle in favour of respondent No.1-Insurance Company. Thus, the Execution petition on behalf of the said Insurance Company seeking recovery of the amount from the petitioner herein was not maintainable at all. The learned Executing court by passing the impugned order and by entertaining the Execution petition against the petitioner has gone beyond the order passed by this Court in CMAM No. 23/2014 thereby exceeding its jurisdiction The impugned order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baramulla being without jurisdiction and is not sustainable in law. 07. Accordingly, the instant petitoin is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 passed by Motor Accident Claims, Tribunal Baramulla alongwith the execution proceedings against the petitioner are set aside, leaving it open to respondent No.1-Insurance Company to seek review of Order dated 09.11.2016 passed by this Court in CMAM No. 23/2014. 08. Disposed of. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 13.05.2025 Showkat Khan