1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT (NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SMT. BEENA DEVI AND ORS.) S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.598/2005 S.B. Civil Misc. appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 15.09.2004 passed by M.A.C.T. Kotputli, Jaipur District in claim Case No.636/2001. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 24th OCTOBER, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Vinod Tyagi for the appellant. None present for the claimants-respondents. BY THE COURT: Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 15th September, 2004 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, District Jaipur whereby the learned Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs.4,60,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants- respondents and against the appellant and respondent Nos.5 and 6. The learned counsel for the appellant-National Insurance Co. Ltd. has not raised any dispute about the payment of the amount of compensation under the award. He has focused his argument only on this point that he may be granted liberty to recover the amount of 2 compensation from the owner by initiating proceedings before the executing Court. Citing the judgment of Pramod Kumar Agarwal and anr. Vs. Mushtari Begum and ors., the learned counsel has contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court held in this case that the Insurance Co. shall not be required to file a suit to recover the amount of compensation from the owner and in the light of the judgment the order may be passed accordingly. None has appeared for the respondents. In the case of Pramod Kumar Agarwal and anr. vs. Mushtari Begum and ors. reported in 2004 ACJ, 1903, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus:- “That the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised, to the respondents-claimants within three months from today. For the purpose of recovering the same from the owner the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the vehicle i.e. appellant no.1 shall furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will 3 pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the Executing Court shall take assistance of the concerned Regional Transport Authority. The Executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the owner of the vehicle i.e. appellant no.1 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 furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured (the appellant no.1).” In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the appellant is permitted to recover the amount of compensation from the owner by initiating proceedings before the executing court and he need not file a suit for the same. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. PCG