"'^ .^- ^'^^•\/^\j-^^'^:'^^'u''^--u^f\j\/\riJ'\i'\.^'^-^\/' •\.Td^^<</V^^:^^^'^it^-A^^"y^l^ii:.?'Y;: IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C. R. No. o^ OF200f REVISION PETITIONUNDERSECTION 115 OFTHEC.P.C., 1908. :v^ .[:..'!\ :i! : ; ^.- APPELLANT ^£TJTION£^ (NQJ^APPLICANT N0.3) ,.a.Ho---^' ^^sw^ ^ RESPONDENTS (^PLICANT) :1 bN-APPLICANTNO.l) ^" <? (NQ^^.APPLICANTNO.2) ff :3. CNpN-APPLICANT N0.4) ^' Inited India Insurance Company Liinited, Branch- Office-2, Medical Chowk Nagpur, Distt. Nagpur(Mah.) Through: Its Divisional Manager, Divisional-Office, Krishna Coinplex-lst flo6r,Kuchery chowk, Raipur, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Santosh Kumar, S/0- Ankaluram,, aged-32 years, Caste-Satriaini R/0-village-Gabhra, Tahsil- Chhuikhadan, Distt- Rajnandgaon (CG). Dhanesh S/0-Baishakhram Gada, aged-35 years, R/0- Gandai Pandanya, Tah.- Chhuikhadan, Distt.- Rajnandgan (CG) Torandas, S/0-Tulasidas Chelak, aged-30 years, R/0- Gabhra, Tah.-Chhzukhada, Distt.-Rajnandgaon (CG Abdul Rahim; S/0-Abdul Rahman, Musalman, R/O-Reka Naka Basti, Nagpur,Distt.- Nagpur (Maharastra) H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. C.R.No.04of2009 APPLICANT UnitedJndia Insurance Company Limited. Versus RESPONDENTS Santosh Kumar and others. Shri Dashrath Prajapati, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Dashrath Qupta, counsel for the appticant. Shri Abhishek Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. ORAL QRDER (27/06/2011) Heard. (2) Leamed counsel for the parties wou!d submit that the jssue arising in this revision has been settled by this Court jn connected appeal M.A. No. 657/2008, M.A. No. 658/2008, M.A. No. 659/2008, M.A. No. 667/2008, M.A. No. 668/2008, M.A. No. 669/2008, M.A. No. 670/2008, M.A. No. 671/2008, M.A. No. 672/2008. M.A. No. 673/2008. M.A. No. 674/2008. M.A. No. 675/2008 and M.A. No. 687/2008 which had arisen out ofthe same accident. The aforesaid appeals were preferred by the appeilant/lnsurance Company chalienaing the liability imposed, upon it by the Claims Tribunal to indemnilv the owner. (3) As the matter is covered by the said judgment. this revislon is also allowed in the same terms and it is directed that the applicant shaii not be liable to pay the amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from the owner. In other words, the applicant/lnsurance Company is not liable to deposit the award, however, if any amount has been deposited by / the appljcant during pendency of this revision and the same has been ^w,^^' X- disbursed to the claimante, then the applicant Jnsurance Company shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner by filing execution before the Tribunal. (4) The revision is accordingly allowed. Copy of the order passed in M.A. No. 657/2008, M.A. No. 658/2008, M.A. No. 659/2008, M.A. No. 667/2008, M.A. No. 668/2008, M.A. No. 669/2008, M.A. No. 670/2008. M.A. No. 671/2008, M.A. No. 672/2008, M.A. No. 673/2008, M.A. No. 674/2008, M.A. No. 675/2008 and M.A. No. 687/2008 is kept in the record ofthis revision. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge L