IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Revision No. 6391 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: July 26, 2011. Royal Builders. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus National Insurance Company and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) 2. Civil Revision No. 6392 of 2010(O&M). Royal Builders. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus National Insurance Company and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.1. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CR No.6391 of 2010 This order will dispose of both the above mentioned revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 17.07.2010 vide which learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short the ‘MACT’) had issued a certificate for recovery of the amount of `6,32,620/- deposited by respondent No.1 in satisfaction of the award passed by learned MACT, Ludhiana with a prayer that execution application be ordered to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned MACT, Ludhiana. Admitted facts are that, an accident had taken place on 05.11.1997 involving vehicle bearing registration No. PB-10P-9814. Two petitions for compensation arising out of the said accident were filed by the claimants. Both were decided together by learned MACT, Ludhiana vide award dated 13.02.2004. Driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.PB- 10P-9814 was held responsible for causing the accident. The present petitioner is registered owner of the said vehicle, which was insured with respondent No.1-Insurance Company. Learned MACT, Ludhiana ordered for paying compensation of `4,04,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. It was ordered that it shall be liability of respondent No.1 –Insurance Company to pay the amount to the claimants. However, it was further ordered that respondent No.1 – Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover this amount from respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and present petitioner through separate proceedings after establishing its claim that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid 2 CR No.6391 of 2010 driving licence or respondent No.2 had violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The said finding of learned MACT, Ludhiana was not challenged by any of the parties by way of appeal. Award was satisfied by respondent No.1 –Insurance Company. However, after satisfying the award, application was filed by the Insurance Company for issuing directions to registered owner to pay the applicant i.e. Insurance Company a sum of `6,32,600/- paid by it towards satisfaction of the award dated 13.02.2004. On the said application no notice was given by the Executing Court to the present petitioner and no enquiry was held establishing claim of respondent No.1 – Insurance Company that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence or owner had violated the terms and conditions of the policy as has been mentioned by the MACT, Ludhiana while passing the award directing the Insurance Company to pay the amount of `6,32,600/- to the claimants. Hence, in view of aforementioned facts, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is, hereby, set aside. Learned MACT, Ludhiana is directed to decide the plea of respondent No.1 –Insurance Company that driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence or owner had violated the terms and conditions of the policy before proceeding further in the matter. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned MACT, Ludhiana has already passed order for attachment of land of petitioner despite the fact that petitioner has furnished bank guarantee as per order of this Court dated 01.10.2010. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent No.1. 3 CR No.6391 of 2010 Hence, in view of these facts, while maintaining the order furnishing bank guarantee, which has already been furnished during pendency of the proceedings, learned MACT, Ludhiana is directed to release the other property of the petitioner, which was already ordered to be attached. Both the parties are directed to appear before learned MACT, Ludhiana on 29.08.2011 for further proceedings in the matter. Both the revision petitions stand disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) July 26, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 4