1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he filed a claim petition u/s 166 of M.V.Act,1989 for grant of compensation on account of death of his elder son due to motor accident on 16.02.2007 before the Hon’ble Court of Dist. and Sessions Judge, Malkangiri vide MACT No. 07/2008 and after due hearing the Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass judgement in favour of the complainant on 08.07.2011 directing the O.P. to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,30,000/- only with 6% interest per annum.  It is also alleged that being aggrieved with the said order, the O.P. preferred an appeal before Hon’ble High Court of Odisha, Cutackvide MACA  no. 21/2012, wherein Hon’ble High Court passed the order directing the O.P. to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- within eight weeks of the order. Further it is alleged that on 05.07.2013 the O.P. sent two number of cheques bearing no. 898219 and 898220 for an amount of Rs. 1,73, 913/- and 90,595/- both dated to the court of M.A.C.T., Malkangiri which were valid upto 05.10.2013, but since the original record was sent to Hon’ble High Court, those cheques could not be realized , as such those two cheques were again sent to O.P. for its revalidation by the Hon’ble MACT Court, Malkangiri. Since already five months have already been passed and the cheques could not be revalidated, those allegeing deficieny in service, the complainant prays before us to direct the O.P. sent the revalidated cheques to the concern court and to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and physical harassment caused to him.
    
2. The Opp. Party, on the other hand, appeared in this case, filed their counter challenging the jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the present case stating that Complainant is a not a consumer as per provisions of C.P.Act and also contended that as the matter is pending before Hon’ble Dist. and Sessions Judge, Malkangiri, this Forum is not proper to redress the complaint petitions, thus prayed to dismiss the case.
    
3. Both the parties have filed certain documents alongwith affidavit in support of their cases.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs at length and perused the materials available on record.
    
4. In the instant case, the Opp. Party raised their contentions emphasizing on the provisions laid down in M.V.Act, have challenged claim of the complainant on the point of jurisdiction under this Fora emphasizing the provision under section 175 of M.V.Act.  Further at the time of hearing, the O.P. have submitted that Complainant could have approached the concern Tribunal under Section 174 of M.V. Act who has awarded compensation and there is provisions under M.V.Act for recovery of the awarded amount if not paid by the Judgement Debtor.  Hence we have carefully gone through the provisions u/s 174 of M.V.Act, 1988, which says :ection 174 – Recovery of money from insurer as arrears of land revenue – Where any amount is due from any person under an award, the Claims Tribunal may, on an application made to it by the person entitled to the amount, issue a certificate for the amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue”. No doubt, this section has not specifically emphasized that no other court can entertain an application to execute the order of Hon’ble Court of M.A.C.T, however, we feel any claim actually made under the provision of M.V.Act, the competent authority to execute the order for recovery is the Court of  MACT, themselves.  Hence, the Complainant was supposed to lodge his claim before the Hon’ble Dist. & Sessions Court, Malkangiri.
    
5. Further, we have gone through the provisions under Section 175 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein it is held that :Section 175 : - Bar on jurisdiction of civil courts – Where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Claim Tribunal in respect of the claim for compensation shall be granted by the civil court. If we consider the provisions under section 175 of the Act, than it is only the Claims Tribunal who is the competent authority having the actual jurisdiction to entertain an application for executing the order of compensation passed by them.
    
6. In the instant case, whether or not, if paid by the Opp. party to the complainant, than the complainant should have approached his grievance before the competent authority constituted under the law to seek redress.  Further this Forum has not been empowered by law of the land to execute the order passed by any M.A.C.T. Court.   

            In view of the above facts, we dismiss the case as not maintainable on the point of jurisdiction.

ORDER

                      Considering the facts of the case, we dismiss the case of complainant as not maintainable on the point of jurisdiction.                                Parties to bear their own costs.

                     Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 16^th day of December, 2017.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.