IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO.No. 41 of 2008. Date of Decision: 4.5.2011. _______________________________________________ Gopal Sharma. .… Appellant. Versus. Akshay Kumar and others. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioners :Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate. For Respondent-1 to 4. :Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondent-5. :Mr.Praneet Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). This appeal has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle against the claimants. The legal representatives of deceased Mohan Lal have been awarded a sum of Rs. 4,84,542/- as compensation recoverable from the petitioner herein. In FAO.No. 503 of 2007, I have already held that the amount be first payable by the Insurance Company and then to be recovered from the owner (appellant herein). On the question of law, I do not find that the question raised herein require any determination more especially in view of the decision of this Court in Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment yes. 2 FAO. No. 444 of 2008 decided on 18th December, 2008 titled Gopal Sharma Vs. Kamlesh and others holding the appellant herein liable. Appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that the right of the Insurance Company to recover the awarded amount is expressly saved. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. May 4, 2011(R)