1 Wp10376.09 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10376 OF 2009 Prakash Balasaheb Pisal. .. Petitioner VS Shri Manik Mahadeo Waghmare & Ors. .. Respondents -- S/Shri D.D. Shinde and U.B. Nighot for the Petitioner. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 5TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C: . By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who is the claimant in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has challenged an order dated 24th July, 2009 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The said order has been passed in execution of the judgment and award dated 22nd January, 2007 passed by the Tribunal in a claim petition filed by the Petitioner. 2. While passing the award in the claim petition, the learned Member of the Tribunal held that the Petitioner has failed to prove that the truck involved in the accident was insured with the 3rd Respondent. In an application for execution of the award against the owner of the vehicle and 2 Wp10376.09 driver, an application was made by the Petitioner seeking a direction against the 3rd Respondent -insurer to deposit the compensation amount as per the award in the light of Section 149 of the said Act. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the claim petition, the Petitioner could not produce a copy of the insurance certificate which was produced in the execution. He submitted that the fact that the offending truck was insured with the 3rd Respondent was not disputed in the execution application by the 3rd Respondent. He submitted that once the insurance is established, under Section 149 of the said Act, the insurer is liable to honour the award which is passed against the insured, and therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error by passing the impugned order. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. In the claim petition filed by the Petitioner, the 3rd Respondent-insurer was made a party respondent. The 3rd Respondent contended that the offending truck was not validly insured with it. The parties adduced evidence and a finding was recorded by the Tribunal that the Petitioner has failed to prove that on the date of accident, the truck was validly insured with the 3rd Respondent. Though the claim petition was allowed, the same was dismissed as against the 3rd Respondent-insurer. An appeal preferred by the Petitioner against that part of the award by which the insurer has been exonerated is pending 3 Wp10376.09 in this Court. 5. The order impugned has been passed in execution of the award. While passing the award, there is a categorical finding that the Petitioner has failed to prove that the truck was validly insured with the 3rd Respondent on the date of the accident. Accepting the prayer made by the Petitioner by the executing Court would have amounted to going behind the award. In the execution, it was not permissible for the Tribunal to go behind the award and record a finding that there was a valid insurance on the date of the accident. In the circumstances, it is not possible to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction. The issue whether the vehicle was validly insured is required to be decided in the pending appeal. The writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J)