Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 26th March, 2009 passed by 1st Additional District Judge. Bokaro in Misc. Case No. 2 of 2006, whereby it has been held that the said Court has jurisdiction to entertain the miscellaneous case filed by the applicant and has directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of sum of Rs. 2,98,680/ - through account payee cheque in the name of the applicant -New India Insurance Company. The short facts of the case was that one Charu Bala Devi had filed a claim case, being Title (M.V.) Suit No. 55 of 1994 against one Sri. M.P. Yadav, D.G.M., HSCL and New India insurance Company Limited, claiming compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988. The petitioner as well as New India Insurance Company contested the said claim case. The parties adduced their respective evidences. The judgment and the award was passed finally on 29th July, 2002, allowing the said claim application, though the petitioner had taken defence that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was insured with New India Insurance Company.
(2.) ACCORDING to the said judgment, driving licence of the driver of the vehicle was not produced by the petitioner. Learned Tribunal held that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. They have also not intimated about the accident to the Insurance Company just after the accident and there was breach of conditions of policy on the part of the petitioner -HSCL. In view of the above, the Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and liberty was given to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the insured (HSCL). A petition was, thereafter, filed by New India Insurance Company before 1st Additional District Judge, Bokaro against the DGM of HSCL, Bokaro and others, praying for recovery of the amount of sum of Rs. 2,98,680/ - from the petitioner, paid by the said Insurance Company. The said petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 2 of 2006 in the court of 1st Additional District Judge, Bokaro. It has been submitted that the award of learned Tribunal was challenged in appeal before this Court, but the same was dismissed.
(3.) THE petitioner contested the said miscellaneous case on the ground that for realisation of the amount from the petitioner, said miscellaneous case is not maintainable and the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said miscellaneous case. The Court has jurisdiction only to adjudicate upon the claim for compensation arising out of motor vehicle accident. The jurisdiction is limited only for the aforesaid purpose. No such power is vested with the said Court for realisation or recovery of any amount from any party. It has got power of civil court only for the limited purpose and not for adjudication of any extraneous issue.;