IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.215 of 2008 Sanjay Kumar Gupta, son of Kashi Nath Prasad, resident of Mohalla Purani Gurhatti, P.S. Chapra Town, District Saran at Chapra …..Petitioner(Respondent no.6/O.P.I). versus 1. The Branch Manager, the National Insurance Company Ltd., Chapra, represented through the Manager, National Insurance Company, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patelpath, Patna-1. ..Opposite Party/Appellant/Opposite Party Ist set. 2. Awadhesh Kumar Manjhi, alias Awadhesh Kumar, son of late Jai Kumar Manjhi, village Mahamaopati, Tokia, PO Tujarpur, PS Chapra, Mufassil (Khaira), District Saran. ..Claimant-Opposite Party/Respondent/Opp. Party 2nd set. 3. Shanti Devi, wife of late Jainarain Majhi 4. Surendra Kumar Manjhi, son of late Jainarain Manjhi 5. Asha Devi, daughter of late Jainarain Manjhi 6. Shakuntala Kumari, daughter of late Jainarain Manjhi, all of village Mohomadpat Takiya, P.O. Tujarpur, Chapra, P.S. Chapra, Muffassil, District Saran. …Petitioner/Respondent/ Opp. Parties 3rd set. ----------- 04/ 04.02.2009 I.A. No. 7025 of 2008 has been filed to condone the delay in filing the instant civil review petition. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the statements made in the interlocutory application, it appears that genuine reasons have been shown for the delay. Accordingly, I.A. No.7025 of 2008 is allowed and the delay in filing the instant civil review petition is condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This petition has been filed for review of the order of this Court dated 18.07.2007 passed in M.A. No. 73 of 2003 (The Branch Manager, the National Insurance Comp. Ltd. vs. Shanti Devi & Ors.), by which in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Comp. Ltd.vs. Baljit Kaur, reported in - 2 - (2004) 2 SCC 1 , the appeal was allowed directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award if not already done and then it would be at liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle by initiating a proceeding in the executing court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant review case, who is the owner of the vehicle, raises serious objections that the said amount is not recoverable from the owner, rather it is to be paid by the Insurance Company. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that in view of the repeated decisions of this Court as well as of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is for the owner to pay the amount in the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. Be that as it may, this Court, without going into the merit of the contentions of the parties, modifies the said order dated 18.07.2007 passed in M.A. No. 73 of 2003 only to the extent that if and when the Insurance Company initiates a proceeding for recovery of the amount paid by it to the claimant from the owner of the vehicle in the executing court, the said Court should hear both parties and decide such proceeding in accordance with law settled by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court without being prejudiced either by this order or by the aforesaid order dated 18.07.2007. 6. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. ) - 3 -