- (1.) The question to be decided in this revision petition is: Whether the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the legal representatives of a person who dies in an accident, could be attached in execution of the decree against the deceased
(2.) In the present case, M/s. Bihari Lal Shannu Ram obtained a money decree for Rs. 5,145.30 against Bihari Lal and Nand Lal. The said Bihari Lal died in the accident. His legal representatives filed as application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Additional District Judge (the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) awared a sum of Rs. 1,6,140,70, vide award dated October 21,1988. Out of the side decretal amount, a sum of Rs. 5,140.30 was attached. In the execution application filed by the decree-holder, the said legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor raised an objection that the said amount of compensation could not be attached in execution of the decree against the deceased Bihari Lal. The learned Tribunal relying upon a judgment of the Madras High Court in Janaki Alias Pattammal v. Prabath Finance,1986 1 ACJ 306 came to the conclusion that the said amount could not be attached. It was held therein that the award amount could not be side to have been a part of the estate of the deceased and was, therefore, not attachable as the assets of the deceased in the hands of his legal representatives. The learned Counsel for the petitioner cited a judgment of this Court in Joti Ram v. Chaman Lal, 1984 ACJ 645, where the question was whether the right to sue survives to the legal representatives of the deceased in repsect of claim on account of loss to the estate. It was held therein that it was well settled that the claim for damages on account of loss to the state of the injured would not abate on his death. The learned Counsel for the respondent also cited Controller of Estate Duty, Patiala v. Smt. Motia Rani Malhotra, 1975 98 ITR 42 to contend that the amount compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, could not be said to be the property passing to the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor. However, that was a case of the estate duty and, therefore, the ratio of the judgment could not be made applicable to the present case.
(3.) However, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the point involved is of a great importance and is likely to arise in many cases and, therefore, the case be referred to a larger Bench for decision. Let the papers be laid before the Hon ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench. Meanwhile, the amount of Rs. 5,145.30 which has been attached be deposited in a nationalised Bank in fixed deposit for one year. Case referred to larger bench.;