IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6368 of 2010 Date of decision:- 30.9.2010 Joginder Singh ......petitioner vs. Dilbagh Singh and another ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Premjit Kalia, Advocate for the petitioner HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Petitioner is aggrieved against an order passed by learned Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal on 22.5.2010, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,93,635 to the claimant-Dilbagh Singh. Smt. Navinder Kaur, mother of the respondent-Dilbag Singh filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation in view of death of her husband in motor vehicular accident on 8.9.2000. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,57,601/- vide the award dated 22.2.2006. After the death of Navinder Kaur, Dilbagh Singh was transposed as a legal representative of the claimant. Dilbagh Singh executed a special power of attorney in favour of the petitioner on 9.3.2006 authorizing the petitioner to receive the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. The petitioner withdrew the amount of compensation but not disbursed the same to Dilbag Singh. Such act led Dilbag Singh to file an application before the Tribunal. The said application was allowed by Tribunal on 22.5.2010. Since the petitioner has failed to return the amount, learned Tribunal has passed an order for attaching the property of the petitioner and to sell the same for recovery of the said amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that after the payment of compensation and satisfaction of Award, the inter se dispute between the principal and agent fall within the domain of contract and thus, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass an order directing the petitioner to refund the compensation disbursed to him as the attorney of Dilbag Singh. I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal is persona designata and has to devise its procedure for doing complete justice between the parties. The amount of compensation was payable to Dilbag Singh but was disbursed to the petitioner as an attorney of Dilbag Singh. The petitioner could not receive and apportionate the amount of compensation for his benefit. He was bound to disburse the entire amount of compensation to the principal i.e. Dilbag Singh. Having failed to do so, learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality or material irregularity in directing the payment to be made to the claimant as the amount of compensation. In view of the said fact I do not find any case is made out for interference in exercising the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 30.9.2010 preeti