-1- Civil Revision No. 1779 of 2011. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: March 15, 2011. Civil Revision No. 1779 of 2011. Smt. Savita and others ... Petitioners VERSUS Satish Kumar and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioners herein, who are legal heirs of Bijan alias Bijender (deceased) had filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short `the Tribunal') and they (petitioners) were granted compensation to the tune of Rs.4,45,000/- along with interest. However, the Insurance Company was was held entitled to -2- Civil Revision No. 1779 of 2011. recover the amount of compensation in accordance with the procuedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Coi. Ltd. Vs.Cheila Bharathamma, 2004 (4) R.C.R (Civil) 399 i.e i.e Insurance Company could recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle i.e the insured. However, vide order dated 1.9.2010, the Tribunal declined to release the amount of award to the petitioners since surety had not been furnished by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein i.e driver and owner, respectively, of the vehicle insured with the Insurance Company (respondent No.3), which has led to the filing of the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for modifidcation of the said order passed by the Tribunal in execution of the award. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, direction deserves to be given to the learned Tribunal to release the amount of compensation keeping in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cheila Bharathamma's case (supra), which, inter alia, provide as under:- “ xx xx. Before release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the offending vehicle shall furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the Executing Court shall take -3- Civil Revision No. 1779 of 2011. assistance of the concerned Regional Transport Authority. The executing Court shall also pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnsihed or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle i.e the insured. In the instant case considering the quantum involves we leave it to the discretion of the insurer to decide whether it would take steps for recovery of the amount from the insured.” Surprisingly enough, the Tribunal, vide order dated 1.9.2010, which has been impugned in this revision petition, ordered that the decree holders (petitioners herein) are free to move an appropriate application for surety to be furnished by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, i.e the driver and owner, respectively, of the insured vehicle, which is totally against the observations of the Supreme Court Cheila Bharathamma's case (supra), reproduced above. Disposed of with direction to the Tribunal to deal with the execution petition filed by the petitioners at the earliest -4- Civil Revision No. 1779 of 2011. keeping in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cheila Bharathamma's case (supra ( MOHINDER PAL ) March 15, 2011. JUDGE ak