'^ ^ c.i ^ ^' (•'/ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION No.- APPLICANT [4- ^®--' ^^' '^•••' ......3I%: -^F^' .-'* RESPONDENTS:- 1. l<£, /2009 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMI., THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PARMANAND BUILDING, NEAR RAJENDRA PARK DURG, C.G. (INSIXRER COMPANY OF ABOVE VEHICLE) Vrs. GANESH MANDAVI S/0 GYANSINGH MANDAVI AGE 32 YEARS, RESIDENT VILLAGE & POST BADGAON, TEH. PANKHAJUR, DISTRICT . KANKER, (CHHATTISGARH) 2. OM PRAKASH @ PRAKASH SAHU S/0 HEMLAL SAHU, AGE 29 YEARS, RESIDENT VILLAGE BADGAON, POST AND THANA BADGAON, DISTRICT KANKER, C.G. (REGISTERED OWNER AND DRIVER OF VEHICLE N0. C.G.04 H 9866) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOA.RH AT CLvil Reyjsjon No. 116 pf 2009 AppSicant Resoondents The Oriental insurance Company Limited Versus Ganesh Mandavi & Another Civil Revision Under Section 115 of Code ofCivii Procedure. 1908 (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. AaarwaS. J.) Present : Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate for applicant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 5th day ofJanuary, 2010) 1. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Additional Motor Acddent Cjaims Tribunai (FTC), Baiod (for short 'the Tribunal') in MJC No. 40/09, whereby and whereunder the appilcation preferred by the applicant/insurance company for refund of the amount which has been deposited by the company pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunai under Sectlon 140 of the M.V. Act in claim case No. 32/08 has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, a ciaim case bearing registration No. 32/08 was filed by the ciaimant against the owner as wel! as against the applicant. in the said case, the appijcation under Section 140 of MV Act filed by the ciaimant was ailowed by the Tribuna! and in pursuance thereof the amount has been deposited by the applicant insurance company. Later on, while deciding the appjication under SectionJ 66 of MV Act, the insurance company has been exonerated from its Jiabjlity to pay any compensation to the ciaimant. '»? c ^.^^T"?%. /€. ^',^r.. y "^ !^y ~^^^^r^" 6. The appiicant neither fiied any appeal against the award passed under Section 140 of MV Act nor preferred any appeal against the final award dated 31.03.2009 which does not contain any direction to refund the amount of compensation awarded under no fauit to the applicant. Shri Sudhir Agrawai, learned counsel appearing for the appilcant would submit that since the insurance company has been exonerated from its liability to pay any compensation to the clajmant, the amount deposited under no fault ought to have been refunded to the appiicant on an appiication preferred by it after passing of the award. He wouid further submit that rejection of the application of applicant is contrary to law and the applicant is entitled for the refund of the amount which the applicant has deposited while satisfying the award under Section 140 of MV Act in the light of fact that the company has been exonerated form its liabiiity to pay any compensation. in support of his contention, Shri Agrawa! relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court passedin case of M.S. Zahed v. K. Raghavan (reported in, AiR 1999SC-219). i have heard the counsel a(3pearing for the applicant and perused the order impugned. Undisputediy, the appiicant neither flled any appea! against the award passed under Section 140 of MV Act nor preferred any appeal against the award dated 31.03.2009 under Section 166 of MV Act which does not contain any direction to refund the amount of compensation awarded under no fault to the applicant. Therefore, when the court in a separate proceeding (MJC No. 40/09), if dismissed the appijcation with an observatjon that the appllcanf may recover the same from 8. the owner of the vehicie, then it cannot be said that the tria! court had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction iliegaliy or with materia! irreguiarity. The Supreme Court in case of M.S. Zahed (Supra), while dealing with Section 50 of Karnataka Rent Control Act (22 of 1961), observed that whiie entertaining the revision, the court can re-appreciate the evidence to find out correctness of order of lower court. Here, in the Instant case, the facts are entireiy different. In the present case, the appiicant has neither chaiienged the award passed under Section 140 of MV Act nor the award passed under Section 166 of MV Act. !n a separate application, he wants refund of the amount deposited by it under no fault award, therefore, the above cited case is of no he!p to the applicant. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the revision being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at admission stage. No order asto costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^ ^ Sahu