Harish Chander vs Purshotam Lal & Others on 31 August, 2009

C.R. No. 622 of 2009 (O&M)                                                  1


IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
              CHANDIGARH

                              C.R. No. 622 of 2009 (O&M)
                              Date of Decision : 31.8.2009

Harish Chander
                                                         .......... Petitioner
                              Versus

Purshotam Lal & others
                                                         ...... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

Present :   Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate
            for respondent No.3.

            Ms. Maninder Kaur , Advocate
            for respondent No. 4.


                  ****

VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 622 of 2009

titled Harish Chander Vs. Purshotam Lal & others and Civil Revision No.

652 of 2009 titled Kamlesh Rani & others Vs. Purshotam Lal & others.

By way of these revision petitions the petitioners have

challenged the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Kurukshetra vide which application moved by the petitioners for release of

the compensation awarded, has been declined, for the reason that the

amount can only be withdrawn after the security is given by the owner to

the insurance company for refund of the amount.

C.R. No. 622 of 2009 (O&M) 2

In view of the liberty granted to the Insurance Company in

main award to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle,

the impugned order has been passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal.

The impugned order reads as under :-

“MACT Case No. 33 of 2004 titled
Harish Chand Versus Purshotam Lal
was decided by my learned
Predecessor by award dated
14.3.2005. Two other cases bearing
No. 34 of 2004 titled Harish Chand
Versus Purshotam Lal and No. 35 of
2004 titled Kamlesh Rani etc.
Versus Purshotam Lal etc. of the
same occurrence were also pending
which were also decided by the
same award.. Application has been
made for release of amount in MACT
Case No. 33 of 2004 titled Harish
Chander Versus Purshotam Lal and
MACT Case No. 34 of 2004 titled
Harish Chander Versus Purshotam
Lal. The application be
registered. Amounts of Rs.

10,000/- and Rs. 1,36,360/-
respectively were awarded in said
cases. It was further directed
that amounts shall be payable by
respondent No.3 National Insurance
Company Limited and it shall be
entitled to recover the same from
respondent No.1 and 2 namely
C.R. No. 622 of 2009 (O&M) 3

Purshotam Lal and Leveleen Kaur.

                  It    was       further       directed          that
                  unless security w as furnished by
                  the driver and owner. The amount
                  shall     not      be    disbursed        to    the
                  petitioner.
                  No    security          has    so    far        been

furnished. Learned counsel for the
applicant has contended that the
amount was put in the fixed
deposit and the FDR has matured.

                  Be   that     as    it     may,     this       Court
                  cannot go beyond the order passed
                  by   my     learned        Predecessor.          The
                  amount      cannot      be    disbursed         till
                  security is furnished as ordered
                  by     him.       The      application           for

release of the amount is therefore
rejected. However, to save the
petitioner from financial loss, it
is directed that the FDR be got
renewed for further period of one
year. File be consigned.”

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the

impugned order is patently without jurisdiction, as the learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal has no such jurisdiction to withhold the decretal

amount. The decree-holder is entitled to recover under the award. Once the

liability was fixed on the Insurance Company with liberty to recover the

same from the owner it could not in any way affect the rights of the

petitioners, who have absolute right to recover the amount deposited for

payment with the executing Court.

C.R. No. 622 of 2009 (O&M) 4

I find force in the contention raised. The Tribunal was bound to

release the amount deposited by the Insurance Company to the petitioners in

execution of the award. The learned Tribunal could not withhold the amount

merely` for want of security by the owner to the insurance company for

refund of the amount. The amount is to be recovered by the Insurance

Company from the owner, in which the petitioners i.e. the claimants have no

roll whatsoever.

For the reasons stated above, both the revision petitions are

allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra is directed to release the awarded amount to

the claimants / petitioners immediately.

31.8.2009                                      ( VINOD K. SHARMA )
  'sp'                                              JUDGE