C.R. No.5781 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5781 of 2008 Date of decision:16.12.2009 Babli and others …Petitioners Versus Rajinder Kumar @ Dara Singh and others …Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Hamid Hussan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R. C. Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.3. None for respondent Nos.1 and 2. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Claim petition filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of Shamsher Singh (husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of minor petitioner Nos.3 to 5) was allowed vide award dated 25.04.2008 by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (in short, the Tribunal) and the petitioners herein were awarded compensation of Rs.4,09,000/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum. All the three respondents i.e driver, owner and insurer respectively of the offending vehicle were held liable jointly and severely to pay the compensation amount, but insurer respondent No.3 was held entitled to recover the same from insured owner respondent No.2. In execution petition (Annexure P-1) filed by the C.R. No.5781 of 2008 -2- claimants/petitioners, the insurer-respondent No.3 deposited the compensation amount, but learned Tribunal vide impugned order dated 30.08.2008 stayed the disbursement of the compensation amount to the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned Tribunal relied on observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Shri Nanjappan and others, 2 004(2) PLR 51 to hold that compensation amount cannot be disbursed to the claimants till insured owner of the vehicle appears in the execution proceedings and furnishes security for payment of the amount to the insurer- respondent No.3. However, observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Nanjappan and others (supra) do not say that the compensation amount be not released to the claimants till owner of the vehicle appears in the execution proceedings and furnishes security and the offending vehicle is attached for recovery of the amount by the insurer from the insured. Even otherwise, on principle, no such order can be passed because claimants are entitled to get the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, irrespective of the right of the insurer to recover it from the insured. In this view of the matter, the disbursement of amount to the claimants cannot be stayed till appearance of the insured owner of the vehicle in executing Court and furnishing of security etc. by him. The insurer has a right to proceed against the insured for recovery of C.R. No.5781 of 2008 -3- compensation amount in terms of award of the Tribunal. However, insofar as claimants/petitioners are concerned, they are entitled to recover the compensation amount from all the respondents jointly and severely. Consequently, the question of staying the disbursement of the compensation amount to the claimants/petitioners would not arise. The impugned order of the Tribunal is completely unsustainable. In the case of Shri Nanjappan and others (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court relied on the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Baljit Kaur and others JT 2000(1) SC 109, but even in the case of Baljit Kaur and others (supra), it was not observed that compensation amount is not to be disbursed to the claimants till the insured owner of the vehicle turns up in the executing Court and furnishes security to facilitate recovery of the amount by the insurer from the insured. It may also be noticed that the compensation amount was lying deposited with the Tribunal. The same was lying unused without earning any interest. The claimants/petitioners would not be entitled to claim interest from the respondents for the period after deposit of the compensation amount by the insurer with the Tribunal. Consequently, the claimants would suffer loss of interest for no fault of theirs. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, pointed out that the amount has now been deposited almost a month back in fixed deposit by the Tribunal, but the petitioners had suffered loss of interest thereon for more than 15 months. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant C.R. No.5781 of 2008 -4- revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 30.08.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside and the compensation amount along with interest is ordered to be disbursed to the petitioners in accordance with law in terms of award dated 25.04.2008 of the Tribunal. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 16.12.2009 A.Kaundal