^ '?.'- • IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION No.- APPLICANT ^&. 7..5^T .^••••^'•^-,Vu^ •" ^•^^'"L.\^ ^^w,.^-v ^%-" RESPONDENTS:- 1. ff^ 72009 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PARMANAND BUILDING, NEAR RAJENDRA PARK DURG, (C.G.) (INSURER COMPANY OF VEHICLE N0. C.G.04H/9866) Vrs. GIRISH NARAYAN SHARMA S/0 RAMJEET SHARMA AGE 42 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 UNDERSECTION 115 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 112 of 2009 Applicant Respondents The Oriental Insurance Company Versys Girish Narayan Sharma &Another Civil Revision Under Section 115 of-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate for applicant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 5 day of January, 2010) The instant revision is directed against the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Balod (for short 'the Tribunal') in MJC N0. 38/09, whereby and whereunder the application 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 Tribunal under Section 140 of the M.V. Act in claim case No. 36/08 has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that, a claim case bearing registration No. 36/08 was filed by the claimant Girish Narayan Sharma against the owner as well as against the applicant. In the said case, the application under Section 140 of MV Act filed by the claimant was allowed by the Tribunal and in pursuance thereof the amount has been deposited by the applicant insurance company. Later on, while deciding the application under Section 166 of MV Act, the insurance company has been exonerated from its liability to pay any compensation to the claimant. ^^we^^ ^ ^ :^ The applicant neither filed 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 applicant on an application preferred by it after passing of the award. hle 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 which theapplicant 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 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, AIR 1999SC-219). I have heard the counsel appearing for the applicant and perused the order impugned. Undisputedly, the applicant neither filed any appeal 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 tothe applicant. Therefore, when the court in a separate proceeding (MJC No. 38/09), if dismissed the application with an observation that the applicant may recover the same from 8. the owner of the vehicle, then it cannot be said that the trial 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 illegally or with material irregularity. 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 while entertaining the revisionr the court can re-appreciate the evidence to find out correctness of order of lower court. Here, in the instant case, the facts are entirely different. In the present case, the applicant has neither challenged the award passed under Section 140 of MV Act nor the award passed under Section 166 of MV Act. In 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 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