^^i^Stm^t^^ nl'< B©^-1! ^ .<•• ....^IE:.. , ^^ ^•^.f^^ -^r...- ^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION No.- ;/c- /2009 APPLICANT :- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,TROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PARMANAND BUILDING NEAR RAJENDRA PARK DURG, (C.G.) (INSURANCE COMPANY OF VEHICLE N0. C.G.04-H-9866) Vrs. 1. KU. MADHU MARKAM D/0 GANGU RAM MARKAM AGE 22 YEARS, RESIDENT VILLAGE & POST BADGAON, TEH. PANKHAJUR, DISTRICT KANKER, (C.G.) 2. OM PRAKASH @ PRAKASH KUMAR SAHU S/0 HEMLAL SAHU, AGE 20 YEARS, RESIDENT VILLAGE BADGAON, POST & THANA BADGAON, DISTRICT KANKER, (C.G.) (REGISTERED OWNERAND DRIVER OF VEHICLE N0. C.G.04/H/9866) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 RESPONDENTS:- HIGH COURT OF.CHHATTiSOARH AT BILASPUR Civi! Revision No. 115 of 2009 Applicant Respondents The Orienta! Insurance Company Umlted . Versus Ku. Madhu Markam 8- Another Civj! Revision Under SectJon 115 of Code ofCivll Procedure. 1908 (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal, J.) Present : Shri Sudhir Agrawal; Advocate for applicant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 5th day of January, 2010) 1. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal (FTC), Baiod (for short 'the Tribuna!'} in MJC No. 36/09, 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 Tribuna! under Section 140 of the iVI.V. Act in claim case No. 30/08 has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, a ciaim case bearing registration No. 30/08 was filed by the claimant against the owner as weil as against the applicant. !n the said case, the application under Section 140 of MV Act fiJed by the claimant was allowed by the Tribuna! and in pursuance thereof the amount has been deposited by the applicant insurance company. Later on, while deciding the applicatjon under Section 1€6of MV Act, the insurance company has been exonerated from its liabiiity to pay any compensatlon to the claimant. 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 counsei appearing for the appllcant 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 appiication preferred by it after passing of the award. He wouid further submit that rejection of the appiication of applicant Is contrary to law and the applicant is entitied for the refund of the amount which the applicant has deposited whiie 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 retied upon the judgment of Supreme Court passed in case of M.S. Zahed v. K. Raghavan (reported in, AIR 1999SC-219). 1 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 appea! 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 to the applteant. Therefore, when the court in a separate proceeding (MJC No. 36/09), if dismissed the application with an observation that the applicant may recover the same from ;^@^ 8. the owner of the vehlcle, 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 Courtfiin-case of M.S. Zahed (Supra), whiie dealing with Section 50 of Karnataka Rent Control Act (22 of 1961), observed that while entertaining the revision, 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 appiicant has neither chailenged 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 dted case is of no help to the applicant. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the revision being devoid of substance is iiable to be and is hereby dismissed at admission stage. No order asto costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Sahu .