Civil Revision No.4523 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4523 of 2008 Date of Decision:16.02.2009 Malkiat Singh Gill ....appellant Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. & ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Y.P.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Neeraj Khanna,Advocate for the Insurance Company Mr.Rakesh Chopra, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This revision petition has been filed by the respondent/owner of the bus No.PB-10-Y-9667 for setting aside the order dated 13.08.2008 vide which the application of the petitioner for recalling the order dated 05.04.2008 has been dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib(in short 'the Tribunal'). The Award dated 10.06.2003 was passed in favour of respondents No.3 and 4 and against the petitioner and respondent No.1 and 2. The liability to pay the compensation was held to be that of petitioner and respondent No.2, jointly and severally. The petitioner filed FAO No.764 of 2005 in this Court challenging the aforesaid Award/order of the Tribunal. While admitting the appeal vide order dated 07.02.2005 this Court stayed the recovery of the remaining amount subject to deposit of 50% of the amount awarded by the petitioner with the Tribunal within a Civil Revision No.4523 of 2008 2 period of one month from the date of order. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.1,20,500/- only(including the amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited in this Court while challenging the appeal). The Tribunal vide order dated 05.04.2008 ordered to sell the property of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal for recalling the order dated 05.04.2008 on the ground that due to oversight and misinterpretation of the order of this Court dated 07.02.205 passed in FAO No.764 of 2005 amount as directed by this Court could not be deposited and this bona fide mistake has occurred due to miscalculation. It was further averred that the petitioner was ready to deposit the remaining amount. However, vide impugned order dated 13.08.2008, the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Challenging the aforesaid order of the Tribunal counsel for the petitioner states that he has complied with the order dated 07.02.2005 passed by this Court in FAO No.764 of 2005. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants have stated that the order has been complied with almost after four years and the petitioner is also liable to deposit the 50% of the interest accrued on the decretal amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner shall deposit the interest accrued on the decretal amount within one month from today. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions, the execution of the impugned order is stayed subject to the condition that in case the petitioners fails to deposit the amount of interest as stated above, the respondent-claimants shall be entitled to execute the Award/decree. In view of the aforesaid facts, the civil revision is disposed of in terms of aforesaid order and directions. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 16.02.2009 neenu