Ct;^ ^ -^' -. Sinilg Sgneh^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR CIVIL REVISION No.- APPLICANT ......^^ ^•••".^^" \\-^ ^;:*^-^ ..a.^''' RESPONDENTS:- 1. /2009 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, TROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PARMANAND BUILDING, NEAR RAJENDRA PARK, DURG, (C.G.) (INSURANCE COMPANY OF VEHICLE N0. C.G. 04/H/9866) Vrs. SMT. DEWAY MANDAVI W/0 LATE MOHAN SINGH MANDAVI, AGE 33 YEARS, RESIDENT VILLAGE & POST BADGAON, TEH. PANKHAJUR, DISTRICT KANKER, (C.G.) 2. OM PRAKASH @ PRAKASH KUMAR SAHU S/0 HEMLAL SAHU, AGE 29 YEARS, RESIDENT VILLAGE BADGAON, POST AND THANA BADGAON, DISTRICT KANKER, (C.G.) (REGISTERED OWNERAND DRIVER OF VEHICLE N0. C.G.04/H/9866) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT Civi! Revislon No. 114t of 2009 The Orienta! insurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Deway Mandavi & Another Respondents Civi! Revision Under Section 115 of Code of Civll Procedure, 1908 (SB: Hon'ble Wr. N.K, AaanAfal J.) Present : Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate for applicant. ORAL (Passed on 5 day of January, 2010) \ 1. The Instant revision is directed against the order dated 30.10.2009 passed bythe Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal (FTC), BaJod (for short 'the Tribunal') in MJC N0. 39/09, whereby and whereunder the applicatlon preferred by the a.ppllcant/insurance company for refund of the amount which has been deposited by the company pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal under Section 140 of the M.V. Act in ciaim case No. 33/08 has been dismlssed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, a claim case bearing registration No. 33/08 was fl!ed by the clalmant against the owner as we!! as against the appiicant. !n the said case, the application under Section 140 of MV Act fiied by the ciaimant was aliowed by the Tribunal and in pursuance thereof the amount has been deposited by the applicant insurance company. Later on, whiie deciding the appiication under Sectlcyi 166 of MV Act, the insurance company has been exonerated from its liability to pay any compensation to the clajmant. \... 6. The applicant 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 fault to the applicant. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that since the insurance company has been exonerated from its liability to pay any compensation to the claimant, the amount deposited under no fault ought to have been refunded to the appjicant on an application preferred by it after passing of the award. He would further submit that rejection of the application of applicant is contrary to law and the applicant is entitled for the refund of the amount whteh the appiicant has deposited whiie satisfying the award under Section 140 of MV Act in the Ilght of fact that the company has been exonerated form its liability to pay any compensation. in support of his contention, Shri Agrawal relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court passed in case of M.S. Zahed v. K. Raghavan (reported in; A!R 1999SC-219). i have heard the counsel appearing for the applicant and perused the order impugned. Undisputediy, the applicant neither fiJed any appeai 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 compensatlon awarded under no fault to the applicant. Therefore, when the court in a separate proceeding (MJC No. 39/09), if dismissed the app!lcation with an observatlon that the applicant may recover the same from 8. the owner of the vehicie, then it cannot be said that the trial court had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by iaw or faiied to exerclse a jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with materia! irreguiarity. The Supreme Court in case of M.S. Zahed (Supra), while deaiing with Section 50 of Karnataka Rent Control Act (22 of 1961), observed that while entertaining the revision, the court can re-appredate the evidence to find out correctness of order of lower court. Here, in the instant case, the facts are entirely different. !n the present case, the applicant has neither challenged the award passed under Sectlon 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 help to the applicant. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the revisjon being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismlssed at admission stage. No order asto costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Sahu