HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.Nos. 4733, 4734 and 5641 of 2008 Date: 09-09-2010 Between: The National Insurance Company Ltd. …… Petitioner and Vorsu Devaiah and others …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.Nos. 4733, 4734 and 5641 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Since common question of law is involved in all these revision petitions, they are taken up together for disposal. The petitioner-Insurance Company filed these Revision Petitions invoking Section 115 of C.P.C., inter alia, aggrieved by the orders, dated 11-09-2007 in O.P.Nos.546, 548 and 547 respectively on the file of the Chairman, MACT-cum-II Additional District Judge (FTC) at Adilabad, filed under Sections 166(1)(a) and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There is no serious dispute with regard to the occurrence of the accident and the negligence attributable to the driver. The Tribunal, ultimately, allowed the claim petitions in part directing the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation to the claimants. Though the Tribunal held that the petitioner-Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation for the unauthorized passengers, the petitioner- Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation to the claimants and later, to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., v. BOMMITH SUBBHAYAMMA AND OTHERS [1], held as follows: “In view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements of this Court, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. This appeal allowed. We, however, make it clear that the claimants-respondents will be entitled to recover the amount of compensation granted in their favour by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal from the owner of the vehicle.” Following the above Judgment of the Supreme Court, this Court has allowed C.R.P.No.4410 of 2006 and M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1368 to 1370 of 2010, through the order, dated 27-08-2010, which were filed by the Insurance Company, and set aside the direction given to the Insurance Company to pay compensation in the first instance and to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In view of the above circumstances, these Civil Revision Petitions are also allowed and the orders of the Tribunal to the extent of directing the petitioner-Insurance Company to pay compensation in the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, is set aside. Further, it is also made clear that the petitioner-Insurance Company is entitled to recover any amounts paid by it, during the pendency of these proceedings, from the owner of the vehicle. No order as to costs. _______________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J Date: 09-09-2010 YCR [1] 2005 ACJ (II) 721