1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.82/2002 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Santosh Vasudeva & Ors. Date : 26.7.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. D.R. Lunkar for the appellant. Mr. K.D. Singh for the respondents. ______ Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has come up for orders on an application moved by the respondents for vacating order granting interim relief. However, at the request of the learned counsel for the parties appeal itself has been heard on merit. The only point raised in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was right in directing the insurance company to satisfy the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in favour of the claimant which arose out of the accident in question. While holding that the Insurance Company's liability was limited to Rs.50,000/- in respect of third party claim, 2 the learned Single Judge had issued direction to the Insurance Company to satisfy the award and recover the amount paid in excess Rs.50,000/- from the insured by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Insurance Company Vs. Cheruvakkara Nafeesu and others 2001 ACJ page 1 wherein referring to Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Court has affirmed such direction issued by the High Court and the Claims Tribunal whose judgments were under appeal. It was also a case which arose out of the award in which the liability of Insurance company was held to be limited to rupees fifty thousand only as is finding in the present case. The Court has stated as under:- “In the facts and circumstances of this case we find that despite holding the liability under the policy limited to the extent of Rs.50,000, the Claims Tribunal and the High Court were not unjustified in directing the appellant company to the whole of the awarded amount to the claimants on the basis of the contractual obligations contained in clauses relating to the liability of the third parties and avoidance clause. However, the 3 Claims Tribunal and the High Court were not justified in rejecting the right of the appellant company to recover from the insured the excess amount paid in execution and discharge of the award of the Tribunal.” Since the order under appeal is in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court, the same is not liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The interim order passed by the Court at the time of admission stand vacated. No order as to costs. [MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA], J. [RAJESH BALIA], J. babulal/