C.R. No. 1794 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1794 of 2008 Date of Decision: 27.07.2009 Satbir Singh son of Piare Lal, Pandit, r/o Chauhan Joshi, Tehsil and District Sonipat (owner of truck No. HR-46-7050). ... Revision-Petitioner Versus 1. Rajesh son of Shri Ram Mehar, resident of village Bhatgaon, Tehsil and District Sonepat. 2. Devinder son of Maha Singh, Pandit by caste, resident of Kathura, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonipat (Driver of truck No. HR-46-7050). 3. The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Sonipat, through its Branch Manager, against policy head note No. 616151 valid from 08.02.2002 to 07.02.2003. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2, exparte. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed, against the order dated 02.02.2008, rendered by the Motor C.R. No. 1794 of 2008 2 Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat, whereby the revision-petitioner, was directed to furnish security, and on his failure to do so, his truck was attached. 2. The facts, relevant for the decision of this petition, are that, Rajesh son of Sh. Ram Mehar, respondent No. 1, filed a claim petition, claiming compensation, on account of the multiple injuries, sustained by him, in a motor vehicle accident, on account of the rash or negligent driving of the truck by Devinder, respondent No. 2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, found that the licence, being held by the driver of the vehicle, at the relevant time, was fake. Ultimately, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide award dated 06.06.2005, awarded compensation, in the sum of Rs. 87,800/-, in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1, holding the petitioner, and other respondents jointly liable, to pay the same. It was, however, directed that, in the first instance, the amount of award shall be deposited by the United India Insurance Company Ltd., respondent No. 3, which shall be, at liberty, to recover the said amount, from the insured i.e. Satbir Singh, petitioner (respondent No. 2, therein), being the owner of the truck. 3. The amount of award, so deposited, by the Insurance Company was ordered to be released, in favour of Rajesh, claimant, subject to furnishing of security by the petitioner, but he did not furnish the same. Accordingly, vide order dated 02.02.2008, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ordered the attachment of truck No. HR-46-7050, of the petitioner, as it came to the conclusion, that there was likelihood of the disposal of the same by him. At the same time, the petitioner, was granted further opportunity to furnish security, on 08.03.2008. C.R. No. 1794 of 2008 3 4. Feeling aggrieved, against the said order, the instant revision- petition, has been filed, by the revision-petitioner. 5. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 6. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that, the order impugned dated 02.02.2008, is illegal, as no direction, could be given, to the petitioner, to furnish security for releasing the amount of award, deposited by the Insurance Company. He further submitted that the order, directing that the truck, aforesaid, belonging to the petitioner, be attached, is also illegal, as the driver of the truck, was holding a legal and valid licence. 7. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the question, as to whether, Devinder, driver of the truck, was holding a valid or fake licence, at the time of the accident, has already been adjudicated upon, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and the same, cannot be reopened, in these proceedings. He further submitted that the order impugned, being legal and valid, was liable to be upheld. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, came to the conclusion, that the driving licence, held by Devinder, driver of truck No. HR-46-7050, involved in the accident, was fake. Thus, the Tribunal rightly held that the Insurance Company shall have a right to recover the amount of compensation, if deposited by it, from the petitioner, who at the relevant time, was the owner of the truck. Since, as per the directions of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the compensation amount, had been deposited by C.R. No. 1794 of 2008 4 the Insurance Company, but before releasing that amount, the petitioner, was directed to furnish security, but when he failed to do so, the truck, in question, was attached, as the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, came to the conclusion, that there was likelihood of the disposal thereof. At the same time, another opportunity, was granted to the petitioner, to furnish security. The interest of the Insurance Company, was required to be protected, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in view of the directions, given in the award. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, could not point out, any illegality, in the order impugned. The order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity, warranting interference, by this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The same is liable to be upheld. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. 27.07.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE