Chander Wati And Another vs Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 29 May, 2009

Civil Revision No. 3227 of 2009                     -1-

                                     ****

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                       Civil Revision No. 3227 of 2009
                       Date of decision: 29.05.2009.


Chander Wati and another                            ...Petitioners


                                Versus

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar and others

                                                    ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.

Present:   Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the petitioners


                             *****

S.D.ANAND, J.

The petitioners are legal representatives/parents of

Dharminder Singh who died in the impugned motor vehicular

accident. They filed a claim petition. The petition was allowed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( hereinafter referred to as “the

Tribunal). The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,74,500/- in

favour of the petitioners and against respondents no.2 and 3 whose

liability to pay that amount was held to be joint and several. The

amount of compensation was ordered to be shared equally by the

petitioners inter-se. Apart therefrom, it was ordered by the Tribunal

that if the amount was deposited within two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of the award by the respondents, interest at the rate

of 6% shall be payable on the amount aforementioned. However, if
Civil Revision No. 3227 of 2009 -2-

****

the amount is not deposited within two months aforementioned, the

petitioner shall be entitled to pay the interest at the rate of 9% per

annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the

awarded amount.

The award amount was deposited. While ordering its

disbursement, the learned Tribunal ordered that petitioners shall

furnish indemnity bond in the sum of Rs. 3 lacs, with one surety in

the like amount.

The grievance of the petitioners is that imposition of the

above condition is inappropriate.

I have no hesitation in allowing the petition in limine,

particularly in view of the fact that the impugned order affects only

the petitioners and the respondents shall not, at all, be concerned

with the implication thereof.

The impugned award did not indicate that the award

amount shall be released on furnishing of indemnity bond, with one

surety in the like amount. There is no observation in the impugned

order that any appeal against the impugned award is pending. In

that view of things, the imposition of a stipulation of onerous

character was not in order.

The petition stand allowed in limine. The award amount

shall be disbursed to the petitioners in terms of the award without the

learned Tribunal insisting upon furnishing of indemnity bond at all.

May 29, 2009                                     (S.D.Anand)
Pka                                                 Judge
 Civil Revision No. 3227 of 2009          -3-

                                  ****