PRESENT     : Ms. Sabita Samantray, President (I/c)

                     : Sri Rajesh Choudhury, Member.

                        District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malkangiri.      

                        Complaint Case no. 136 of 2014                                                            

Dated 23^rd day of November, 2017.

Complainant     : Samari Hantal, aged about 56 years,

                         W/O Late Sukra Hantal of

                         Teakguda Colony, Po/Ps. Kalimela

                         Dist.Malkangiri.              

Versus

Opp. Party       : Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

                          Station Road, Berhampur, Dist. Ganjam.

========================================================

For Complainant : Sri Guruchran Mohanty, Advocate, Malkangiri.

For O.P. Parties  :  Sri. S.N. Bramha, Advocate, Malkangiri.

========================================================

1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that the Hon’ble Addl. Dist. Judage-cum- P.O., 4^th M.A.C.T., Malkangiri has been pleased to pass an order directing the Opp. Party to pay compensation of Rs.85,200/- with interest to the complainant with conditions, against which, the Opp. Party has challenged the said order before the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha, Cuttack, wherein the matter was decided in the Lok Adalat and the award eas lessened to Rs.75,080/- with interest from the date of filing to the date of payment. It is submitted that the O.P. has without proper calculation has paid lesser amount of Rs.15,000/- than that of the actual amount payable on the date of payment. In spite of her best to pursue the O.P. for final payment, the O.P. kept silent and did not care with a prayer to direct the Opp. Party to the lesser amount with interest along with Rs.50,000/- towards compensation to her.
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 could have approached the compensation and there is provisions under M.V.Act for recovery of the awarded amount if not paid by the Judgment Debtor. Further it is contended that the present subject matter of the case is arising out of an award passed by 4^th M.A.C.T., Malkangiri, which is created by special Act i.e. Motor Vehicle Act as well as the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court and the complainant has not hired or availed any service from this O.P. and along with other contentions, the Opp. Party prayed the Forum to dismissed the case.
    
3. Both the parties have filed certain documents along with 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 submissions emphasizing on the provisions under Section 175 of M.V. Act, stated that complainant could have approached the concern  Tribunal under Section 175 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 Judgment Debtor. Hence we have carefully gone through the provisions u/s 175 of M.V. Act, 1988 wherein it is held that:   Section 175- Recovery of money for 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 M.ACT, themselves. Hence, the Complainant was supposed to lodge her claim before the Hon’ble Court ofADJ-Cum-4^thM.A.C.T., Malkangiri.
5. Further, we have gone through the provision under Section 175 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein it is held that:               Section 175:- Bar on jurisdiction of civil court – 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 injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Claim Tribunal in respect of the claim for the claim for compensation shall be granted by the civil court.

        If we consider the provision under section 175 of the Act, than it is only the Claims Tribunal who is the competent autjority 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, the lesser amount, if paid by the Opp. Party to the Complainant, than the complainant should have approached  her claim 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 award has compensation 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 23^rd day of November, 2018. Issue free copy to the parties concerned.

          Sd/-                                                                        Sd/- 

Member                                                               President (I/c)