CW 6376/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6376/08 Mamta Kumari Versus MACT & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 18/05/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. D.K. Garg, for petitioner *** Instant petition has been filed by owner of the offending vehicle assailing order dt.7th May, 2008 passed by Tribunal for execution of award dt.19th June, 2006. Claimants for the alleged incident of 15th April, 2004 filed application u/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act against insurance company and owner of the offending vehicle before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. However, after final adjudication of the matter, the Tribunal finally absolved the Insurance Company and the petitioner [owner of the offending vehicle] was held liable for payment of compensation to the claimants under award dt.19th June, 2006 [Ann.1]. However, at one point of time, the Insurance Company filed review application seeking clarification for recovery of amount which was paid under “no fault liability” of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants as they were completely absolved by the Tribunal from paying compensation under its CW 6376/08 [2] award and thus, prayed for the payment made under “no fault liability” to be recovered from owner of the offending vehicle, but the same was rejected by Tribunal vide order dt.18th July, 2007. On the application filed by the Insurance Company for issuance of recovery warrant, Tribunal vide order dt.07/05/08 has taken note of the fact that once complete liability has been fastened upon the owner of the offending vehicle and a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- determined as compensation is indisputably recoverable from the owner of the offending vehicle and Rs.50,000/- has been paid to the claimants by Insurance Company under “no fault liability”, being recoverable from owner of the offending vehicle as per order dt.07/05/08 [Ann.6] and that cannot certainly be segregated while making recovery of the balance amount towards compensation in terms of award. I have heard counsel for petitioner and does not find any any manifest error committed in passing order impugned which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA6376CW08 18-5.doc