IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO 146 of 2011. Decided on: August 30, 2011. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. …Petitioner. Versus Amar Lal …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Mr. B.M.Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) An award for a sum of Rs.1,64,000/- with interest, was passed in favour of the claimant by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in the year 1999. The present petitioner, who was a respondent in the claim petition, in the capacity of insurer, was also made liable to pay award money, by the Tribunal. Petitioner filed an appeal and in the appeal, it was held that the petitioner was not liable to pay the award money, but at the same time, it (the petitioner) was ordered that after making the payment of award money to the claimant, together with interest, it could recover the award money, alongwith interest, from the present respondent, who was the insured. Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - 2. After having paid a sum of Rs.2,51,607/- to the claimant, on account of award money and interest, due on that money, petitioner filed an execution petition for recovering the said amount from the respondent. Learned Tribunal took up the matter on 2.5.2008, on which date, respondent paid a sum of Rs.51,607/-, by means of a bank draft and agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in four six monthly instalments, of Rs.50,000/- each, first of such instalment being payable on 1.11.2008 and the subsequent, within the following six months period. 3. Respondent did not pay any of the four instalments. So execution petition was filed in May, 2010. During the pendency of that execution petition, respondent paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and the fact was admitted by the petitioner’s counsel. Learned Tribunal then dismissed the execution as fully satisfied. Petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal of execution petition, as fully satisfied. According to it, interest was required to be paid on the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, at the same rate, at which the claimant had been ordered to be paid the award money, because the respondent defaulted in payment of the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in instalments. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. - 3 - 5. Impugned order of the Tribunal is dated 8.12.2010 (Annexure P-7). Its reading shows that though counsel for the petitioner had admitted that the respondent had paid amount of Rs.2,51,607/-, as per undertaking given in the previous execution petition, vide statement dated 2.5.2008, it is also clear from the order that despite having admitted the aforesaid fact, petitioner’s counsel made some submission, because after making reference to the aforesaid admission of the counsel, word “heard” is written in hand, which indicates, that he was opposed to the dismissal of execution, as fully satisfied. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the earlier execution petition was disposed of, vide order dated 2.5.2008, respondent – JD made a statement that in case default was made in payment of any of the instalments, the entire amount then due, shall become recoverable at once. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, words “amount then due” meant that the amount was to be paid alongwith interest on the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and the rate of interest was to be the same, as mentioned in the award. 7. This matter requires consideration by the learned Tribunal, as the same cannot be gone into in the present proceedings, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petition is - 4 - allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Tribunal, with a direction to decide the same on merits, after hearing both the parties. August 30, 2011(PC) (Surjit Singh ), J.