Civil Revision No.3262 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.3262 of 2009 Decided on : May 29, 2009 Raj Kumar ... Petitioner VERSUS New India Assurance Company Ltd. ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Naveen Malik Advocate for the petitioner. A.N.JINDAL, J.- An award dated 27.8.2008 to the tune of Rs.8,42,000/- in favour of Jaswant Kaur, etc, and against the respondent - New India Assurance Company Limited, petitioner and Raj Kumar and others was passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, wherein, it was ordered that the amount of compensation shall first be paid by respondent No.4 (respondent Insurance Company in the present petition) to the claimants (in the claim petition) and it could recover the same from respondents No.1 to 3 (petitioner in the instant petition and others). The operative part of the award reads as under:- Civil Revision No.3262 of 2009 [ 2 ] “...However, as the Route Permit of the vehicle in question has not been found to be valid on the date of accident, the amount of compensation shall first be paid by Respondent No.4 to the claimants and it can recover the same from respondents No.1 to 3 in view of the latest pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as 2004 ACJ 1 National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others....” Now, the amount is said to have been paid by the Insurance Company to the claimants. Consequently, the Insurance Company filed an application under Order XXI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure against respondents No.1 to 3 (in the said claim petition), for recovery of the amount, wherein, the petitioner, who was respondent No.1 in the claim petition, being owner of the offending vehicle, has also been summoned vide order dated 10.2.2009 (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the instant petition. Heard. Since there is a specific order by the Tribunal while passing the award that the amount could be recovered by the Insurance Company from the petitioner and others, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the other facts and circumstances, there was no necessity for the Insurance Company to approach any other competent Court for further adjudication of the claim. However, it could recover the said amount by way of availing Civil Revision No.3262 of 2009 [ 3 ] the legal remedy against the petitioner and others, which course has rightly been adopted by the Insurance Company. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. ( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE May 29, 2009 `gian' To be Referred to Reporter - Yes/ No