THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.NO.1121 OF 2006 DATE: - 12 -03-2010 BETWEEN: The United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Branch Manager … Appellant/Respondent No.2 and Patan Khasim Khan, S/o.Late Murad Khan and three others … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.NO.1121 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: (ON BEING MENTIONED) This appeal arises out of award dated 03.01.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.607 of 2003 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Cuddapah (Fast Track Court, Cuddapah and MACT). Respondent No.2 in the O.P., the United India Insurance Company Limited, is the appellant in this appeal. 2. One Patan Kamal Bee, the wife of respondent No.1 boarded the lorry belonging to respondent No.4 with half bag of rice for going to a place called Mudivedu. When the lorry reached a place called ‘ontillu’, it turned turtle causing serious injuries to the people traveling in the lorry. Patan Kamal Bee has succumbed to injuries in the Government Hospital, Madanapalli. Her husband and two children, who are respondents 1 to 3 filed M.V.O.P.No.607 of 2003 before the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) claiming a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the owner of the lorry and the appellant with whom the lorry was insured. The Tribunal while holding that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and therefore, the appellant is not liable for payment of compensation, however, directed that the compensation of Rs.1,41,500/- should be first paid by the insurance company, i.e. the appellant and recover the same by filing an execution petition against the owner, respondent No.4. 3. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dictated judgment in open Court on 16-2- 2010, holding that the Insurance Company was not liable to deposit the compensation amount as its defence was accepted by the Tribunal. It was however held that the claimants need not refund the compensation amount withdrawn by them. 4. However, before the said order was signed, this Court heard MACMA No.1355 of 2006, wherein an identical issue was raised. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimants in that case advanced his contentions based on the judgment of a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others – 2004(2) ALD 36 (SC). In view of the elaborate submissions made in that case, the judgment was reserved after completing the hearing. As the Judgment i n Swaran Singh (supra) was not placed before this Court, at the time of hearing of the present case, this Court had no occasion to deal with the said judgment. After a detailed consideration of the judgment in Swaran Singh (supra) this Court in MACMA No.1355 of 2006 had come to the conclusion that the reasonable way of understanding the judgment in Swaran Singh (supra) was that it has left discretion to the Tribunals and Courts to give appropriate directions, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, on the aspect of Insurance Companies having to deposit the compensation amounts even where their defence is accepted by the Courts. On the basis of the said conclusion, this Court, in MACMA No.1355 of 2006 felt it appropriate to permit the claimants therein to retain the amount of Rs.75,000/-, permitted to be withdrawn by them under the interim order passed by this Court, pending the CMA., and also to withdraw the balance amount of compensation deposited by the Insurance Company. The claimants were given liberty to recover the rest of the compensation from the owner of the tractor-trailer. In order to maintain parity and consistency, this Court felt it necessary to pass an order in line with the above mentioned order, in this case as well. Therefore, this Court posted the appeal “for being mentioned”. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is felt appropriate to dispose of the appeal in the following terms: As this Court, while admitting the appeal granted stay on condition of the appellant depositing 1/3rd of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the respondent-claimants were permitted to withdraw their respective shares without furnishing any security, it is just and proper that the respondents are allowed to retain the amount already withdrawn by them. The respondents are entitled to recover the balance amount from respondent No.4-owner of the lorry. It is needless to observe that the appellant is entitled to recover the amount deposited by it towards the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from respondent No.4. The MACMA is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. Dt: 12-03-2010 Rns/MNR